defendant 1 parked his truck at a dark street. Several iron pipes were protruding from the back of the truck. he violated city ordinance which required parked cars to be lighted, and a red light to display at the end of the pipes protruding from the truck. defendant 2, a taxicab driver, was driving passengers at excessive speed and crashed into the pipes killing the passenger. The passenger's family sued both for liability, trial court held for passengers.
In cases in which both the plaintiff and defendant are negligent then it is referred to as comparative negligence. It is a defense which permits negligent parties to recover the damages but in proportions based on the degree of fault.
Here in this case scenario both the defendant 1 and defendant 2 are negligent, defendant 1 violated the city ordinance which requires parked cars to be lighted and defendant 2 is negligent as he drove the car with excessive speed.
Hence, both defendant 1 and defendant 2 are liable for the harm caused. Therefore, the defense was valid.
Company BGC was transporting large glass sheets on the highway. A passenger ES was driving his car at a distance away from the truck. The glass sheets are not properly fastened and as a result a sheet fell from the truck and shattered on road and got bounced and hit the windshield of ES car. ES was not injured but suffered great emotional shock.
ES sued BGC to recover the damages. BGC denies the liability on the ground that ES is not physically injured.
The above act constitutes a tort under Infliction of emotional distress. Those injured by the negligent infliction of serious emotional distress have the opportunity to recover damages.
For these reasons, we hold that a cause of action may be stated for the negligent infliction of serious emotional distress without a contemporaneous physical injury.
Applying these principles to the case that appellant has such a cause of action. Due to BGC's negligence, a large sheet of glass fell off the truck onto the highway and crashed into the windshield of appellant's vehicle. The validity of ES claim of serious emotional distress as a result of the accident is supported by the expert testimony and the negligence of duty care by BGC. Therefore ES could recover the damages for emotional distress.
Refer to the case Knight v Jewett (834 P.2d 696)
Mrs. K (plaintiff) and Mr. J (defendant) were playing a game of touch football with several people. They were on the same team. During the game Mr. J bumped into Mrs. K and stepped on her hand. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. J , appeals court affirmed on grounds of assumption of risk, plaintiff voluntarily played a game which she know to have potential harm. Plaintiff appealed
The Supreme Court of California affirmed.
On discussion, the court recognized that under comparative liability, plaintiff will be able to receive damages from defendant, granted if defendant had a duty of care to plaintiff. However, under contributory negligence plaintiff's own inability to provide duty of care to herself voids any damages owed by defendant. The court took the trial court's opinion, in order for defendant to have liability of a potentially dangerous game, the defendant must have acted in a way that is intentional or reckless or out of scope of the game that it increases harm to others. In this case, it was neither.