Quiz 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability
The court would apply the standard of negligence to determine if S is liable or not. 1) Duty: Does S owe a duty to the passenger of the other car? Yes. When operating her vehicle, S has a duty to operate her car in a way as to not injure other people on the road. That includes not taking medication that could cause her to be drowsy and then driving her vehicle. 2) Breach: Did S breach that duty? Yes. She ran into another car and injured the passenger. 3) Causation: Did S's consumption of the medication lead to the accident and injury? By taking the medication and knowing that it would make her drowsy and unable to drive, S caused the accident that injured the other passenger. There is clear causation. 4) Damages: Was the passenger injured in a tangible way? Yes. Thus, S would be found liable under the tort of negligence.
RM resort probably will take the defense of the assumption of risk that the plaintiff is aware about the risks associated with the snow tubers. It is generally assumed that each and every individual participating in the ski and snow tubers have full knowledge about the risk involved and they are willingly ready to take such risk. In this case, A has decided to go for snow tube in the absence of trainer, thereby assuming risks for the same. So, there is no fault on the part of RM Ski resort as A has assumed the risk on her own knowingly that the trainer is not there to train.
Duty of Care: The causation element of negligence is of the greatest concern in this case. In order to prove negligence, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care that s/he breached, the plaintiff suffered a legally recognizable injury, and the defendant's breach of the duty of care caused the injury. • Duty of care: Ruth breached the duty of care that she owed others including Jim when she parked carelessly on the hill. • Jim suffered an injury. Therefore, the remaining element of causation is at issue. There are two parts to causation, causation in fact and proximate cause. Jim must prove that both parts were present in order to win his case. In the 'but for' test, Ruth's car set into motion a chain of events without which the barn would not have fallen down. However, proximate cause is more difficult to prove for Jim because there must be a strong enough links between Ruth's negligent act and the injury suffered. • So, would it be foreseeable that the negligent parking on a hill would cause to an electric spark, a grass fire, a barn full of dynamite and then the roof falling off? • In this case, it would be a question of fact for a jury to determine whether there were enough intervening events between Ruth's parking and Jim's injury to defeat Jim's claim.
There is no answer for this question