Chapter 7 Discussion
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Texas A&M University, Kingsville *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3340
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by HighnessValor8027
Running Head: CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION
1
Chapter 7 Discussion
Boming Liu
Howard Community College
10/25/2020
CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION
2
Negligence & Strict Liability
Negligence versus strict liability is a fundamental principle in the American tort
system. In tort law, a breach of duty involves the failure of one party's duty not to harm the
other (Werro & Büyüksagis, 2015). Initially, the court rules the right to acquit Rocky's from
any liability. The plaintiff signed the contract stated that they assumed responsibility for any
accidents during the rock-climbing expedition to the extent of death. Therefore, the contract
covered the injuries the plaintiff sustained. Hence, Rocky's engaged in reasonable conduct
cannot assume responsibility for the plaintiff's injuries (Werro & Büyüksagis, 2015). The first
three facts stated would change the outcome of the case.
On the first fact, the plaintiff did not sign a contract. Rocky's assumed that the
plaintiff was aware of the risks, which is not the case. There was no reasonable care in the
form of sensitization on the dangers that come with the activity. There was no contract
signing; therefore, Rocky's would have to incur strict liability (Werro & Büyüksagis, 2015).
On the second fact, Rocky's would have lost the case and compensated the plaintiff. Even
though James and Jenny signed the contract, they only assumed responsibility for risks
resulting from rock-climbing. If this particular fact were actual, Rocky's would have to incur
strict liability as no care was taken not to harm James and Jenny (Werro & Büyüksagis,
2015). The company driver was speeding, hence voiding reasonable care theory as the driver
violated the traffic laws.
On the third fact, there was no plaintiff's sensitization of rock-climbing dangers, even
though they made it clear they had never rock climbed before. No reasonable care was taken
by Rocky's to protect the plaintiff. Rocky's did not warn the plaintiff of the dangers of what
they were about to do. Also, there was no contract; hence, Rocky's would have to incur the
accident's strict liability (Werro & Büyüksagis, 2015).
CHAPTER 7 DISCUSSION
3
References
Werro, F., & Büyüksagis, E. (2015). The bounds between negligence and strict liability.
In
Comparative Tort Law
. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help