Final Exam Practice
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University Of Arizona *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
402A/502A
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
14
Uploaded by ChiefBook8121
Final Exam Practice
In order for Lawrence to file a suit of negligence against Jennifer, Lawrence
must prove that
there was a duty of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages.
Duty - In a jurisdiction using the Majority rule for duty of care, Jennifer owed
Lawrence a
general duty of care to act as a reasonable person would. In a court using the
minority rule for duty of care, Jennifer would not have owed Lawrence a duty
of care since he was not within the reasonable foreseeability zone of danger.
But since the majority general duty of care is used, Jennifer owed a duty of
care to Lawrence to act as a reasonable person would.
Inherently dangerous activity - In the ruling in the case Robinson, the court
held that if a child engages in an inherently dangerous activity, the child
must be held to the adult standard of care. One might argue that archery is
not an inherently dangerous activity, but since Jennifer was aware that
normal children were not allowed to operate bows and arrows by themselves,
she was inherently aware of her activity and should be held to the adult
standard of care. Breach - Jennifer breached her duty of care when she was
operating the bow and arrow and lost her concentration. It was Jennifer's
duty to act with care and not be negligent when handling the bow and arrow.
Causation - In order to prove liability upon Jennifer, the existence of actual
and proximate cause need to be shown. Jennifer was the actual cause of
Lawrence's injury. But for if it weren't for Jennifer's negligent act, Lawrence
would not have been injured. In order for Jennifer to be liable, there needs to
be a proximate cause. Because Lawrence and the harm/injury that was done
to him
was not within the foreseeable zone of danger and it was not foreseeable
that the bow and arrow would struck a power transformer, Jennifer is not the
proximate cause of Lawrence's injuries. In a ruling similar to Palsgraf, it was
not foreseeable that Lawrence would be a plaintiff who was injured. He lived
3 miles from the archery range and it was not foreseeable that the arrow.
Would hit the power transformer, causing the damage chain to spiral.
Jennifer was not the proximate cause of Lawrence's injury. There was also an
intervening act that diminished Jennifer's liability. The intervening act
happened when the arrow struck that power transformer, but since the
power transformer did not have the necessary protective padding needed
and it was suggested to have it, this intervening act would prove that
Jennifer was not liable. Conclusion - Jennifer was not the proximate cause of
Lawrence's injury, meaning that Jennifer would not be liable for damages.
The Homeowners association would also not be liable for damages due to all
of the reasons listed above. It was not foreseeable that Lawrence would be
an injured party, and they were also not required to have the protective
padding, meaning that no laws were broken and they acted with reasonable
care.
Tommy is fourteen years old. Tommy plays golf every day at his local golf
course, using
a golf cart. Although children are generally not allowed to rent carts at the
course,
Tommy has a special relationship with the owners of the course, who consider
him to be
of unusual maturity. He is generally allowed to use the golf carts as long as
they are
available. One day, while driving a cart from the first to the second hole of the
golf course, Tommy failed to watch where he was going and ran into Dana
just as she was swinging her golf club. Because of the accident, Dana's shot
left the golf course, and the ball fell into an air intake at nearby Power Plant,
causing it to cease operations. Power Plant had failed to
attach the required screen on the air intake when it opened the plant. Perry
lives ten miles from the golf course. He relies on a constant supply of oxygen
in order to stay alive. When Power Plant shut down, Perry's equipment
stopped supplying the needed oxygen, and he suffered brain damage. What
possible tort causes of action does Perry have against Tommy? Discuss.
Issue:
At issue is whether Tommy is liable for negligence to Perry for Perry's brain
damage after Tommy ran into a swinging golfer, whose golf ball stopped a
power plant's
operations, and resulted in the loss of power to Perry's oxygen machine 10
miles away
from the golf course.
Negligence Rule:
Negligence can be established by showing a defendant had a duty of
care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and the defendant's
breach caused
the plaintiff's damages or injuries.
Duty Rule:
Under the majority rule, a general duty of due care is owed to all possible
plaintiffs.
However, the majority rule states that a duty is owed to all foreseeable
plaintiffs within
the zone of danger.
Duty Analysis:
If this case were being tried in a jurisdiction following the minority rule, a
very strong
argument could be made that given Perry lived ten miles from the golf
course, he was not
within the zone of danger and Tommy would owe no duty to Perry.
Duty Conclusion:
We will assume that this is in a jurisdiction following majority rules and Tommy
owes
Perry a general duty of due care.
Breach of Duty Rule:
Breach of duty can be established by using the reasonably prudent person
test.
Breach of Duty Analysis:
Because Tommy is only 14, his standard of care will be measured against a
child of
similar age, experience and intelligence. However, when a child is engaged
in an adult
activity, they will be held to the adult standard of care. Because we are told
that at the
golf course where Tommy was, children are not generally allowed to rent
carts on the
course, it could be considered an adult activity and therefore Tommy should
be held to
the standard of care of a reasonably prudent adult.
Tommy may try to assert the argument that driving a golf cart is not
specifically an adult
activity like driving a car or operating equipment. However, because this golf
course
limited the driving of golf carts to adults only, it would be considered an
adult activity in
this situation and he would therefore be held to the standard of an adult.
There is an argument to be made that perhaps a reasonably prudent adult
may have failed
to watch where he was going while driving the golf cart, causing him to run
into Dana.
However, a stronger argument can be made that a reasonably prudent adult
knows that when they are driving a golf cart on the course, where there are
likely to be other players,
they should be paying special attention to their surroundings.
Breach of Duty Conclusion-
Therefore, it can be said that Tommy breached his duty owed.
Causation-
For Perry to be successful in his cause of action it must be shown that
Tommy was the actual and proximate cause of his injuries.
Actual Cause Rule-
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
For Tommy to be the actual cause of Perry's injury it must be shown that but
for his
negligence, Perry would not have been injured.
Actual Cause Analysis-
But for Tommy failing to watch where he was going and as a result hitting
Dana, causing
the ball to go into the air intake at Power Plant, Perry would not have lost the
power to
his equipment which supplied him with oxygen.
However, had Power Plant attached the required screen on their intake, the
golf ball
would not have fallen into the air intake. Had Tommy not failed to watch
where he was
going and had Power Plant not failed to attach the required screen, Perry
would not have
been injured.
Actual Cause Conclusion-
Based on this, it can be said that Tommy's conduct of failing to see Dana and
running into
her just as she swung her club was a substantial factor in contributing to
Perry's injuries.
Proximate Cause Rule-
For Tommy to be the proximate cause of Perry's injuries it must be shown that
the type of
harm sustained was reasonably foreseeable and that there were no
intervening acts.
Proximate Cause Analysis-
Type of harm- When one causes a golf ball to go astray, one could reasonably
expect
to hit someone causing injury, or to break a window or a car parked close by.
However,
because we are told that Perry lived ten miles from the golf course, it could
be argued that
it would not be reasonable to expect that someone would sustain injuries as
a result of
negligent conduct on Tommy's part while on the golf course. Additionally, one
would not
reasonably foresee that as a result of running into someone on the golf
course, a golf ball
would go into a power plant intake causing the plant to cease operations
resulting in
Perry losing power supply to his equipment that supplied him with oxygen.
Intervening act- The fact that Power Plant had failed to attach the required
screen on the
air intake would be considered an intervening act. For it to cut off Tommy's
liability it
must be a type of act that was not foreseeable. An argument could be made
that because
this screen was a requirement, it was not a foreseeable intervening act. One
would expect
Power Plant to have the necessary equipment on their plant and follow what
was required of them. However, because there are many instances in which
people fail to follow
requirements of them, this could be considered a foreseeable event which
would not cut
off Tommy's liability.
Proximate Cause Conclusion-
However, because of the type of injury Perry suffered and because of the fact
that he was
10 miles from golf course, Tommy would not be found to be the proximate
cause of
Perry's injuries, which would cut off his liability for Perry's injuries.
1.
Following a massive hurricane, Louie decided to steal some gasoline from an abandoned gas
station in his neighborhood. While pumping the gas into a 10 gallon metal can,
Louie
thoughtlessly lit a cigarette, which caused an explosion and fire. Luckily for Louie, the explosion
threw him several yards away and he landed on the lawn in front of Denise's house, who lived
next door to the gas station. Louie sustained minor injuries, but Denise, who heard the explosion,
ran outside, and fearing that the fire would spread to her house, tried to put out the fire with a fire
extinguisher. Unfortunately, Denise suffered serious burns in the process. Denise decides to bring
suit against Louie for negligence. Will Denise prevail in her suit against Louie?
D.
Yes, because Louie was at fault in causing the fire.
2.
Don liked to lift weights at the local gym. One day, Paul, who was standing next to Don,
decided to show Linda, his girl friend, how he could pick up a large weight with his little finger.
Unfortunately, Paul lost his hold on the weight and dropped it on Don’s ankle, breaking it.
If Don sues the gym for damages, will he recover?
(A) Yes, because a jury may use the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur
to infer a breach of duty on the
part of the gym.
(B) No, because there is no evidence that the gym failed to exercise reasonable care in
keeping the premises safe for Don.
(C) Yes, because Don was an invitee on the premises.
(D) No, because Don was a licensee on the premises.
3
. Joe loved to attend the football games played by his favorite hometown team, The Blue Bay
Hackers. Whenever a Hackers player scored a touchdown, the player would throw the football he
carried over the goal line into the stands. After his favorite Hackers player, Roger Arron, scored a
touchdown, Joe yelled out to him, "Give me all you've got big guy. Throw it here!" Roger gave it
all he got, throwing the football as hard as could at Joe. Joe caught the ball but it was thrown so
hard that it knocked him backwards, causing him to fall and hit his head on the bench behind
him. Joe ended up with a concussion and had to be taken to the hospital, where his medical
expenses totaled several thousand dollars.
Joe intends to bring suit against Roger for his injuries. Will he be able to recover damages?
1.
(A)
No, because Joe consented to the player’s contact.
2.
(B) No, because injuries sustained during sporting events are foreseeable.
3.
(C) Yes, because Joe did not expressly consent to the contact.
4.
(D) Yes, because Joe suffered a harmful and offensive contact.
4.
Paula was diagnosed with a non-malignant tumor on her spine, causing her mild back
discomfort, and her doctor, Don recommended surgery to remove the tumor and relieve
her pain. Doctor Don did not inform Paula that because of the tumor's location on her
spine, he would need to do an experimental form of surgery that he was working on with
a for-profit medical research laboratory. He also did not inform her that there was a fifty
percent chance that the operation might cause some form of permanent paralysis. Paula
consented to the surgery, and Doctor Don successfully removed the tumor. However,
when Paula regained consciousness, she was paralyzed in her right leg. Paula brought a
medial malpractice suit, alleging that the doctor did not adequately inform her of the risks
of the surgery.
If Paula sues Doctor Don, should she prevail?
(A) No, because Paula consented to the surgery.
(B) Yes because a reasonable person in Paula’s position would have not consented to the surgery
if informed of the risk involved
(C) Yes, because the doctor’s actions constituted battery.
(D) No, because success is never guaranteed in medical operations.
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
5. Craftware Inc. made electric saws. Their highest priced hand saw, brand-named the "Beaver,"
when set at its highest speed, could be difficult to control with just one hand. Experienced,
professional carpenters knew to use two hands with Craftware's top of the line saw. Craftware,
Inc., therefore, put a warning label on each
Beaver
saw, which read: “This
Beaver
hand saw is a
high-speed power tool designed for professional use. Always use great care when working with
this or any other power tool.” Wally Woodworker liked to work with wood as his hobby, building
small model boats and doll house furniture. He bought the Craftware, Inc.
Beaver
hand saw for a
woodworking project in his garage. Wally set the saw to its highest speed, but used only one had
to operate it, as he was accustomed to doing with his smaller, less powerful hand saw. The saw
fell from Wally's hand and cut his leg as it fell to the floor, requiring a large number of stitches
and surgery for the injury to his leg.
Which of the following is most accurate?
(A) Wally should prevail in a products liability suit against the Craftware, Inc., because the saw
had a manufacturing defect.
(B) Wally should prevail in a products liability suit against Craftware, Inc., because
the company should have put a clearer warning on the saw.
(C) Wally should not prevail in a products liability suit against Craftware, Inc., because he did
not exercise adequate care in using the saw.
6.
A manager and employee were having an animated argument. The manager was
gesturing at the employee with his left hand in which he was holding a pen. Out of
anger, the employee swung at the pen, intending to knock the pen out of the
manager's hand. The pen flew though the air and hit an office assistant, who was
walking by at the time. If the office assistant sues the employee, who will prevail?
The office assistant, because the employee intended to touch the pen.
7.
A runner reached first base successfully on an error and then , on the next pitch,
attempted to steal second. The catcher threw the ball to the second baseman as the
runner slid into second. The runner slid in such a way that his foot was elevated and
knocked the ball out of the second baseman's mitt. The second baseman was
infuriated by the runner's action and pushed the runner to the ground when he stood
up. The runner fell to the ground and suffered a broken arm. It was later discovered
that the runner had a calcium deficiency. A person without such a deficiency would
not have suffered a broken arm as a result of the push by the second baseman. If the
second baseman is liable for causing injuries to the runner, should the damages
awarded the runner include compensation for the broken arm?
Yes, because although the broken arm may have been unforeseeable, some harm from
being pushed to the ground was a foreseeable type of injury.
8.
An 8-year-old boy throws a rock intended to hit the newspaper delivery man as he
rides by on his bicycle. An 80-year-old woman, seeing that the rock is about to hit
her, jumps out of the way as the rock falls harmlessly to the ground. The woman filed
a civil suit against the boy for assault. Who should prevail?
The woman, because the boy intended to hit the delivery man.
9.
Albert was driving safely under the speed limit on River Road. Suddenly, a garbage
truck came around a curve from the other direction at a high speed and crossed the
center lane. As there were other vehicles immediately behind and in front of the
garbage truck. Albert's only option was to turn to the right, onto Betty's front yard,
damaging her prize rosebushes worth several thousand dollars. Which of the
following best describes Albert's liability to Betty for destruction of her rosebushes in
a jurisdiction which follows the rule and reasoning of the court in Vincent v. Lake
Erie Transportation Co.?
Albert is liable for damages to Betty's rosebushes.
10. A man was upset because he heard that his friend had been spreading rumors behind
his back. The man worked himself into a frenzy and approached his friend. Before the
friend could say anything, the man pushed him to the ground. The friend fell on a
rusty nail and later died of a blood infection resulting from being cut. The friend's
wife sued the man for damages resulting from the friend's death. Is the man liable for
the death of his friend?
Yes, even if he had no desire to kill the friend.
11. A golfer was playing his friend for $10 a hole. On the second hole, the golfer hit an
errant shot that bounced off a sprinkler head on the golf course. The golf ball landed
on a rancher's land that bordered the golf course. The golfer then walked onto the
rancher's land to retrieve his $3 golf ball. Which of the following statements is most
accurate?
The golfer is not liable for trespass to land for hitting the ball on to the rancher's land but is liable
for retrieving his ball.
12. A patient in a hospital was placed in a wheelchair with his broken leg extended
straight out in front of him. As a nurse employed by the hospital was pushing the
wheelchair through a set of automatic doors at a normal pace; the doors closed on the
patient's foot, injuring it. The nurse attempted to pull the wheelchair back through the
doors. This action caused the doors to close more tightly on the patient's foot, injuring
it further. The patient sued the hospital, alleging improper maintenance of the doors.
The patient has produced no evidence of specific conduct or neglect on the part of the
hospital that would have caused the automatic doors to malfunction. The hospital has
moved for summary judgement. Should the court grant the hospital's motion for
summary judgement?
No, because a jury could find the hospital liable for negligence based on res ipsa loquitur.
13. Mary was celebrating New Years Eve in a public park and unexpectedly drew a pistol
from her bookbag, firing it off into the air. Unfortunately, her friend Thomas was
standing right next to her, and the sound so frightened him that he immediately fell to
the ground, causing him to fracture his wrist and seriously damage a very expensive
watch he was wearing on that wrist. In a jurisdiction following the reasoning and the
ruling of the court in In re Polemis, Thomas will likely:
Prevail for damages caused to his wrist and his expensive watch, because given
Mary's breach of duty towards Thomas, the fact that she could not have reasonably
anticipated the type of damage which resulted from her negligent act is irrelevant
under In re Polemis.
14. Two Plaintiffs suffered serious concussive injuries in a bubble soccer league game
when each intentionally dove headfirst into each other attempting to head a ball. Both
are suing the Defendant University of Arizona Intramural Sports Program for
negligence. The Defendant has submitted evidence showing that each player signed a
waiver of liability that included express instructions to avoid intentional head to head
contact. In a jurisdiction that adopts the ruling and reasoning of the court in Murphy
v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., the Plaintiffs will likely:
Not prevail because the risk of injury was inherent with the activity willingly engaged in by the
Plaintiffs.
15. LaNita Wilson and her minor so., alleged that a patient, Stephen Wilson, who was
undergoing joint therapy with LaNita, had expressed to the defendant-psychologists
his intention to cause LaNita grave physical harm. When Stephen Wilson later
assaulted LaNita with a shotgun, she used her body to shield her son, who was in the
seat next to her. Although he was spared physical injury, the son averred in his
complaint against the psychologists that he suffered extreme emotional harm as a
result of the event. The psychologists move for dismissal. The family is suing the
physicians for negligence. In a jurisdiction that follows the reasoning and ruling of
the court in Tarasoff, LaNita's son will likely:
Prevail because it was foreseeable that Stephen's threats, if carried out, posed a risk of
harm to bystanders and particularly to those close in relationship to LaNita, therefore
petitioners' duty extended to the son, and that this duty was breached when they failed
to act to protect LaNita and such foreseeable individuals.
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
16. A hiker was walking on a trail in the woods within the boundaries of a state park. The
surface of the road changed as the hiker crossed from the park onto private property
but there were no warning signs at the boundary. The hiker came across some rugged
terrain and grabber onto a rock to help pull herself up a hill. The rock dislodged and
landed on the hiker's ankle, pinning her down and causing injury to her leg. The hiker
did not know that the rock had been dumped by the property owner on unstable soil.
The hiker filed and action against the property owner to recover for her injuries.
Should the hiker prevail in a jurisdiction which follows the traditional common law
approach to duty of care applied to landowners?
No, because the property owner owed no duty to the hiker.
17. A woman invited six friends to her parents' house to watch a football game. The
woman's parents were not at home. While they were watching the game, snow fell
outside, coating the sidewalk and driveway with a thin transparent layer of slippery
ice. At half-time, all seven people went outside to play in the snow. Most of the
people were intoxicated. While fooling around throwing snowballs, one of the friends
tripped on the front steps leading up to the house and injured his knee. Which of the
following statements is most accurate in a jurisdiction that follows the traditional
common law approach to duty of care applied to landowners?
The woman had a duty to warn her friends of any known dangerous condition on the premises.
18. A technician who had just retired from a demolition company after working there for
over twenty years went to visit the site of a demolition being conducted downtown
near the river. The technician wanted to see the demolition of a famous office
building. Because he had overseen the demolition of many buildings of similar size
and construction, the technician knew that debris rarely if ever escaped the blast zone
and furthermore, the company would be taking extra care not to permit debris to
pollute the river. So the retired technician took a small boat up the river to the
demolition site. An employee of the demolition company warned him to stay away
from the blast zone but the retired technician told the employee that he know what he
was doing and had on a hard hat. The technician veered very close to the blast zone,
closer than a non-employee would have been allowed, and when the building was
demolished, a large chunk of cement struck him in the forehead. He was seriously
injured as a result. If the retired technician sues the demolition company, will he
recover under a theory of strict liability?
No, because the retired technician assumed the risk of injury.
19. Jim, Luis, and Sid were playing on the roof of Rob's shed on Rob's property. Rob
ordered the boys to get down and threw a stick at Jim, who was closest to him. Jim
ducked and the stick struck Luis in the face, breaking his glasses and causing a deep
cut under Luis's eye. Luis sued Rob for battery to recover for personal injuries.
Evidence was offered showing Rob threw the stick not intending to hit Jim, but
merely to frighten him. The trial court entered judgement for Luis and Rob appealed
on the grounds that he did not have the intent to hit Luis and was therefore not liable
for battery. Can Rob be held liable to Luis for battery?
ISSUE: Can Luis sue Rob for battery when Jim was the intended physical target of the stick?
RULE: Common law rule for battery and character of intent. 1 Restatement, Torts, 29, 13
(Battery)
An act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another's person
makes the actor liable to the other if (a) the act is done with the intention of bringing about a
harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the other or third person, and (b) the
contact is not consented to by the other or the other's consent thereto is procured by fraud or
duress, and (c) the contact is not otherwise privileged.
ANALYSIS: "Transferred Intent:" The common law rule for battery states that Rob's intent to
cause apprehension in Jim by threat of harmful contact satisfies the first element, even if Rob hit
an unintentional target. Additionally, according to the rule from Garratt v. Dailey, whether Rob
intended to hit Luis with the stick is irrelevant. If Rob had sufficient knowledge that harmful
contact or apprehension would result from throwing the stick at another or a third party, then he
is liable for battery.
CONCLUSION: Rob will most likely not prevail in his appeal unless his is able to show he was
unaware his actions would have resulted in some injury or apprehension.
Part II:
Essay 1
-
IN EXAM
- only one of the two options on my slides will be the
question (see the options on my slides). Whichever one is the question you need two
IRACS. So the question could either be on firstly a Adam v Dot/Adam v Brad analysis so
two IRACS
OR
a strict liability products question with two IRACS so damaged person v
manufacturer and damaged person v another.
Adam accepted an invitation from his friend Dot to attend a baseball game. The seats Dot had
purchased were very good, a few rows up from the field, and just past first base. Adam had
recently immigrated to the United States and knew nothing about baseball.
During the game, a player, Brad, hit a ground ball toward third base. The third baseman fielded
the ball and threw to the first baseman. Brad thought he was “safe,” but the first base umpire
called him “out.” Brad began to argue with the umpire, and in frustration, Brad threw his batting
helmet to the ground. The helmet, made of a strong, hard plastic material, bounced on the ground
and flew into the stands, striking Adam on the side of the head, causing a serious injury. Adam
never saw the helmet coming towards him because he was looking around the stadium at the
time rather than at the play on the field. As he was unfamiliar with the game of baseball, he did
not know that objects occasionally fly into the stands during a baseball game.
What arguments would Adam make in support of a claim of negligence, what defense(s) can
reasonably be asserted, and who is likely to prevail in a lawsuit filed by:
Adam against Brad? Discuss. Adam against Dot? Discuss.
Adam v. Brad
Negligence: Negligence is the failure to conform one’s conduct as a reasonable person would
under the same or similar circumstances. The prima facie elements of negligence are Duty;
Breach; Causation and Damages.
Duty: Under the Cardozo majority view as posited in the Palsgraf case, a duty exists to those
within the foreseeable zone of danger. Under the minority Andrews view if a duty extends to one
foreseeable plaintiff it is extended to all actually and proximately injured. Here, Brad had a duty
to act as a reasonable professional baseball player. Brad breached that duty when he argued with
the umpire, threw his helmet to the ground and it injured Adam. Adam was in the foreseeable
zone of danger because he was seated in good seats
a few rows from the field and just past first
base, where the incident between Brad and the umpire took place. Therefore, Brad owed a duty
to Adam.
In general there is no duty to act; however, when one acts affirmatively they have a duty to act as
a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. Under the Cardozo majority view as
posited in the Palsgraf case, a duty exists to those within the foreseeable zone of danger. Under
the minority Andrews view if a duty extends to one foreseeable plaintiff it is extended to all
actually and proximately injured. Here, Brad had a duty to act as a reasonable professional
baseball player. Brad breached that duty when he argued with the umpire, threw his helmet to the
ground and it injured Adam. Adam was in the foreseeable zone of danger because he was seated
in good seats [sic] a few rows from the field and just past first base, where the incident between
Brad and the umpire took place. Therefore, Brad owed a duty to Adam.
Standard of Care: The standard care is a measure of the duty owed. Here Brad will be held to the
standard of a professional baseball player. Brad must conform his conduct to that of a reasonable
professional baseball player under the same circumstances. The facts tell us that Dot purchased
the tickets, and therefore it is implied that a player is being paid for his services if attendees are
paying for their seats. 3 Brad may later argue that he was an amateur player and thus his standard
was that of a reasonable baseball player. However, under either Standard of Care, Brad will be
obligated to act as a reasonable person.
Breach: Breach occurs when a person who owes a duty of care acts unreasonably, thereby
causing harm to the plaintiff. Here Brad breached his duty to Adam when he threw the baseball
helmet so forcefully to the ground that it shattered and a shard of the helmet flew in the stands.
Here, if Brad had acted as a reasonably prudent professional baseball player or, for that matter
even a reasonably prudent person, he would not have argued so forcefully with the umpire and he
would not have, in an unsportsmanlike manner, thrown his helmet to the ground. Therefore Brad
has breached his duty to care because his actions caused the harm to [Adam] and it was
unreasonable for him to act this way to the public and in particular to Adam.
Causation:
Causation exists in two forms, Actual and Proximate.
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
Actual Cause: In order to be liable the breach must be the cause of the harm. In order for
proximate cause to exist factual cause (actual cause) must first exist. Actual cause is said to exist
when but for the act the injury would not have occurred. Here, but for Brad throwing the helmet
to the ground Adam would not have been injured. Therefore, Brad’s act of throwing the helmet is
the actual cause of injury to Adam.
Proximate Cause is a foreseeability test. Here, Brad, by throwing his helmet so hard against the
ground, caused it to shatter and impact Adam, who was in the stands. The force of the throw
must have been substantial for the helmet to break and fly that far. It is also foreseeable that even
if the helmet had not broken into pieces the helmet itself could have been propelled in the stands
and struck a patron. Thus the act of throwing the helmet and having it or a piece of it strike a
patron was foreseeable. Brad may argue that the umpire who called him out at first base caused
him to lose control and thus this temper flared; thus this act by the umpire was an intervening
and superseding event that broke the chain of causation. However, the umpire’s call came before
Brad’s act occurred and it was not intervening or superseding. Therefore, Brad is the proximate
cause of Adam’s injury.
Damages:
Damages occurred when Adam was struck by the helmet that Brad threw to the
ground. Adam was seriously injured by the flying shard of plastic; thus injury occurred.
Therefore Brad has caused injury to Adam through his breach of duty which was the cause of
harm and he will be liable to Adam under a claim of negligence.
Adam v. Dot
Duty: Here Dot had a duty to act as a reasonable person to take such action so that an
unreasonable risk of harm would not occur to Adam. In general there is no duty to act. However,
having gratuitously undertaken to invite Adam to the baseball game he had a duty to act as a
reasonable person would. Here Adam will contend that Dot breached that duty when she did not
inform him of the possibility of being harmed. Thus Dot owed a duty to Adam.
Breach: Defined supra: In order to be liable, the breach must be the cause of the harm. In order
for proximate causation to exist, actual cause must first exist.
Causation: Actual cause is said to exist when but for the act the injury would not have occurred.
Here but for Brad throwing the helmet the injury would not have occurred. Thus, the actual cause
of injury is Brad throwing the helmet. There are no indications that Dot had reason to know that
Brad would throw the helmet, or that he contributed in any manner to the injury. A reasonable
person would not expect a baseball player to throw a helmet. Furthermore a reasonable person
would merely explain the game and the rules to their friend, not explain every potential
possibility of an injury. Therefore actual causation does not exist and because of this Dot will not
be the cause of Adam’s harm. Therefore, Dot was not the cause of Adam’s injury and because the
element of actual causation is missing, she will not be liable to Adam under a cause of
negligence.
Damages: Damages occurred when…..? Adam may attempt to find Dot breached her duty by not
informing him of the potential harm, thereby denying him the opportunity of deciding if he
should assume the risk. However, this does not appear to be a viable defense, as Dot was not
under a duty to be Adam’s parent or guardian, nor did she have a contractual or statutory
obligation, nor did she create the peril or assume the risk merely by extending the invitation.
Therefore, Adam will not be successful in his claim of negligence against Dot.