ITT We Do Torts Issue Spotting

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

ITT We Do Torts Issue Spotting

Postby Extension_Cord » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:38 pm

Exercise #1
http://law.widener.edu/lawlibrary/servi ... j2001.ashx

Spot the issues and post the ones I missed, We aren't going in detail whether they will win, but we can discuss it if you find something particularly interesting.

Grandma v. Party Goers
1. Negligence (duty to rescue b/c they caused danger)
2. Battery (car roared pasted them, sub. certain to cause apprehension, contact was made it becomes a batter)
3. Assault (same reason as above)

Kitties Father v. Gas Station Owner
1. Negligence (GSO created the risk on his premises, hes liable)

Kitty v. Party Goers
1. Potential IIED (reckless)
2. NIED (closely related, within zone)
3. Assault (not likely to win)

Grandma v. Kitty
1. Negligence both ways

Adult Children v. Grandma
1. Negligence (allowed kitty to drive, potential that they knew Kitty didn't have a licence)

Family v. Gas Station Owner
1. Negligence (not putting up barriers or something to prevent accidents)

Family v. 911 / Ambulance / Hospital
1. Negligence (Ambulance was late, Kitty called 911 before her father but ambulance arrived "around the same time as her father."

Post em'

User avatar
istara
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:05 pm

Re: ITT We Do Torts Issue Spotting

Postby istara » Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:27 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:Exercise #1
http://law.widener.edu/lawlibrary/servi ... j2001.ashx

Spot the issues and post the ones I missed, We aren't going in detail whether they will win, but we can discuss it if you find something particularly interesting.

Grandma v. Party Goers
1. Negligence (duty to rescue b/c they caused danger)
2. Battery (car roared pasted them, sub. certain to cause apprehension, contact was made it becomes a batter)
3. Assault (same reason as above)

I don't see this as a battery claim, and she probably wouldn't want to argue it anyway since negligence pays insurance while intentional torts usually do not. Assault wouldn't hurt to argue as long as she saw it coming. Some jurisdictions may allow some kind of pain and suffering if she did not die immediately, but that's questionable. You might also want to frame the answer in terms of wrongful death and survival actions.

If Grandma was particularly incapable, you might also argue an affirmative duty of her children to make sure she gets home safely (though it is a stretch). She also has a potential claim against the gas station owner because he affirmatively offered assistance/rescue and may have done so badly (he moved her: did she have a broken neck?)

Dad (and everyone else, actually) also has an action against the party-goers since they are the ones that set the whole incident in motion (so long as proximate cause is satisfied for any given claim).

ohiohawk58
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:44 pm

Re: ITT We Do Torts Issue Spotting

Postby ohiohawk58 » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:15 pm

I don't think there can be negligence against the GSO, he had no reason to believe he would get sick. Depends on amount of time between puking and not cleaning it up to determine if he can be liable for that.

Also don't think the ambulance can be negligent. There is a presumption that they came as fast as possible. Would have to prove that they were not acting reasonably (not putting on sirens/lights to avoid traffic jams). They could have come from much further away so it may not matter that they got there at the same time as dad




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deadthrone7, hkh2220, newhere21, Stubbazubba, WeekendWarrior and 13 guests