Freddie is driving his motorcycle in a state in which helmet use is required by statute. Freddie is not wearing his helmet because it flattens his hair and he thinks he looks sexier without it. As Freddie is driving down the highway, a car driven by Renee pulls out directly in front of Freddie. Freddie runs into Renee's car and receives severe head injuries. Freddie sues Renee. What defenses, if any, can Renee assert?

Freddie is driving his motorcycle in a state in which helmet use is required by statute. Freddie is not wearing his helmet because it flattens his hair and he thinks he looks sexier without it. As Freddie is driving down the highway, a car driven by Renee pulls out directly in front of Freddie. Freddie runs into Renee's car and receives severe head injuries. Freddie sues Renee. What defenses, if any, can Renee assert?

Similar questions

Agents and employees of Deco Arts Corporation and Echo Imitations Inc. are convicted of conspiring to violate a federal law that is punishable by a term of imprisonment and a fine. Can the corporations be held liable for these crimes? If so, how can they be punished?
What legal duty, if any, does the physician owe the person? Please explain in detail. Assuming that the physician has a legal duty towards the person, did the physician breach that legal duty? Please explain in detail. Assume that the physician knew that they were infected with a communicable disease and purposefully performed the CPR, although others at the scene could have performed it; what intentional tort(s), if any, has the physician committed against the person? List the tort(s.) What possible defense(s) does the physician have against a tort action by the person.
Olga, a resident of Maine, was recently injured by a defective product produced by Home Appliance Corporation, which is incorporated in Delaware but has its company headquarters in Virgina. Olga purchased the defective product in Maine. Olga is suing Home Appliance for $60,000. Which courts would have personal jurisdiction in this case? Would a federal court have jurisdiction? Why or why not?
5-3 PROXIMATE CAUSE. Galen Stoller was killed at a railroad crossing when a train hit his car. The crossing was marked with a stop sign and a railroad-crossing symbol. The sign was not obstructed by vegetation, but there were no flashing lights. Galen’s parents filed a suit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Corp. The plaintiffs accused the defendant of negligence in the design and maintenance of the crossing. The defendant argued that Galen had not stopped at the stop sign. Was the railroad negligent? What was the proximate cause of the accident? Discuss. [Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. 2011)] (See Negligence.)
Lend Co. discovered that one of its employees, Dana, is an alcoholic. Her manager realized that Dana's alcoholism must be the reason for her absenteeism. To help Dana overcome her alcoholiśm, the employer provided her with counseling services and also asked her to make a firm choice between treatment and discipline. Lend Co. also offered outpatient treatment, and Dana participated in the program without success. When all of these efforts failed, Lend Co. offered to provide inpatient treatment, and Dana refused. Lend Co. fired Dana. According to the courts: O A. Dana has a valid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act because she willingly participated in the outpatient treatment, even though it did not produce positive results. O B. Lend Co. is not liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act because it offered a reasonable accommodation, and Dana refused. O C. Lend Co, is liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act because it failed to offer Dana time off from…
Joseph Burger was the owner of a junkyard in Brooklyn, New York. His business consisted, in part, of dismantling automobiles and selling their parts. The state of New York enacted a statute that requires automobile junkyards to keep certain records. The statute authorizes warrantless searches of vehicle dismantlers and automobile junkyards without prior notice. One day, five plain-clothes officers of the Auto Crimes Division of the New York City Police Department entered Burger’s junkyard to conduct a surprise inspection. Burger did not have either a license to conduct the business or records of the automobiles and vehicle parts on his premises, as required by state law. After conducting an inspection of the premises, the officers determined that Burger was in possession of stolen vehicles and parts. He was arrested and charged with criminal possession of stolen property. Burger moved to suppress the evidence. Did Burger act ethically in trying to suppress the evidence? Does the…
An intruder entered through a window and raped McCutchen in her apartment. MCutchen sued the landlord, Ten Associates, for failure to provide adequate security and failure to warn her of the risk of intrusion through the window. Ten Associates claimed that they had no way of anticipating an intruder. Evidence was introduced that revealed the landlord knew or should have known of a prior rape and numerous intrusions through apartment windows. Does it appear that Ten Associates was negligent in providing for the security of tenants?
Case4 One afternoon, the plaintiff (P) and her husband were out driving for picnic together with their three children. They pull-over in a lay-by, a designated pave area beside a main road where cars can stop temporarily, for a picnic and the plaintiff took one of the children across the road to pick flowers. The defendant, Mr. Berry (D), was driving recklessly and crashed into the couple’s van, where the plaintiff’s husband and the other children were preparing. The plaintiff’s husband was seriously hurt by the crash and died at the scene a few hours later while most of the children suffered injuries. The plaintiff witnessed the entire event and its aftermath, developed long-term “morbid depression”, consequently. Please state the four basic elements of negligence. Plaintiff sued Mr. Berry for the cost and damages as a result from nervous shock that she suffered due to the negligence of the Defendant. Please state your reasons
Leon A. Tashof operated a store known as the New York Jewelry Company. The store was located in an area that served low-income consumers, many of whom had low-paying jobs and had no bank or charge accounts. About 85 percent of the store’s sales were made on credit. The store advertised eyeglasses “from $7.50 complete,” including “lenses, frames and case.” Tashof advertised this sale extensively on radio and in newspapers. Evidence showed that of the 1,400 pairs of eyeglasses sold by the store, fewer than 10 were sold for $7.50; the rest were more expensive glasses. The Federal Trade Commission sued Tashof for engaging in bait-and-switch marketing, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. a) Explain what a bait and switch is. b) Was Tashof’s conduct in this case ethical? c) Who wins, and why?
Lucy cannot stand the fact that her ex-husband, Ethan, is about to get remarried. After all, it was a horrible breakup, and Ethan was really mean to her. Lucy decides to get her revenge by telling Ethan’s employer that Ethan stole large amounts of money from his previous employer, even though Lucy knows it is not true. If Lucy follows through on her plan, she will have: a) not committed the tort of defamation because the statement would not harm Ethan’s reputation. b) committed the tort of defamation because it is an untrue statement intended to harm Ethan’s reputation, and she stated it to another person. c) not committed the tort of defamation, because she only made the statement to one person.
Erin is a lawyer with twin sons that are 12 years old. Erin is resting in her bedroom when she hears loud noises in the family room. She springs up, runs to the family room, and sees one son, Phil, punch the other son, Kip. Erin immediately orders Phil to stay in his room for the rest of the day and to not use the internet for 48 hours. As Phil mopes along the hallway to his room, Phil shouts. "Kip punched me first!" What legal principle would Erin recognize Phil's remark as being? O ad hoc because Phil is adding an accusation against his opponent Kip. O in pari materia because Kip attacked in the same manner as did Phil O caveat emptor because Phil thinks he is right. O jus ad bellum because Kip's action is what actually started the fight (the "war") O in pari delicto because they (Phil and Kip) are at equal fault.
In partnership with American Express, Porter Cable requests that all employees at the rank of supervisor and above apply for a corporate credit card to be used for pay for travel, training and similar expenses. Ima Krimnel, the manager of the distribution center, was issued a corporate card and used it to take her husband to Hawaii for their 20th wedding anniversary. If Krimnel does not pay the charges, is Porter Cable liable? Why or why not?