Top Law Schools

John is a college student who hailed a cab one night after a heavy night of drinking at the "The Drunken Clam." On the way home, John rolls down the cab window and throws a beer bottle at a pedestrian named Jane. Jane gets a concussion and has to undergo surgery to fix her head. Betting that John is a broke college student, Jane has asked our firm if she can sue the cab company and "The Drunken Clam" for negligence. Does Jane have a suit for negligence?

No because Jane is an asshole and she deserved it

hth

I think Jane is liable here

She must pay John's taxi fare

Should have switched their roles to please all the misogynists in these fora.

no

no agency relationship
no negligence. high b against pl
no duty, b/c crushing liability
no prox cause
policy: we want cabs to take drunks home

Brut wrote:no

no agency relationship
no negligence. high b against pl
no duty, b/c crushing liability
no prox cause
policy: we want cabs to take drunks home

Torts professor said It depends on if the passenger was making threats to passerbys etc., or if it was completely random. Low B to roll up window and lock it either way though. PL and foreseeability goes up if he is already acting violently.

That's a classroom hypo rather than an exam hypo, but bonus points if you point out that most cab companies are set up as an organization of independent contractors and then run down the factors that go into employee vs independent contractor for a respondeat superior claim (assuming you can make a case for a negligence claim against the driver in the first place).

Brut wrote:no

no agency relationship
no negligence. high b against pl
no duty, b/c crushing liability
no prox cause
policy: we want cabs to take drunks home

dat dram shop doe