387 Prelim 2_StudyGuide - QUSTION 1 Daran: Issue: The issue...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
QUSTION 1 Daran: Issue: The issue here for Daran is, is Dan still liable for the injuries he sustained while on the Ithaca Beer Resort property even though a third party became involved in the accident. Rule: In order to prove that Dan is liable for Daran’s injuries he must show all four of the following: Duty – obligation running from defendant to plaintiff to exercise reasonable care Breach of duty – the defendant did not fulfill his/her duty to the plaintiff Cause – it was the breach of duty that somehow effected the plaintiff Damage – the plaintiff suffered some sort of damage or injury as a result of the defendants negligence, be it physical, emotional, or monetary. Application: Duty – Given the common law rule, Daran would be considered an Invitee because he is staying at the resort, (guest/there for business), and because of this, a heightened duty of care is owed to him by Dan, that is reasonable care. Breach – because Dan did not warn Daran or the others of the jet ski race he breached his duty of care to Daran. Causation (2 forms) Direct – “but for” Dan breaching his duty and not warning them of the jet ski race, would Daran had been 20 yards from the raft thus causing him to be hit by the golf balls. The answer to this is no, so then Daran needs to prove…. Proximate – Daran must show that it was foreseeable that Dan’s breach might have created a risk of harm. Here Dan would argue that it was a superseding cause, that meaning that it was not foreseeable that Dan would have been hit by the golf balls. Daran however, would argue intervening causation, claiming that it was foreseeable that he would be hit by the golf balls. Damages - As a result of Dan’s negligence, Daran sustained injuries from being hit by the golf balls. Conclusion: Although Dan breached his duty of reasonable care to Daran, he would not be held liable for Dan’s lawsuit because it was unforeseeable that Daran would be hit by golf balls after being thrown by the Jet Ski. Thus Daran would lose his suit when Dan proved superseding causation.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Alan Issue: Is Dan liable for the damages caused to Alan. In other words, can Alan prove Dan was negligent? Rule: In order for Alan to prove Dan’s negligence, he must show all of the following: Duty – obligation running from defendant to plaintiff to exercise reasonable care Breach of duty – the defendant did not fulfill his/her duty to the plaintiff Cause – it was the breach of duty that somehow effected the plaintiff Damage – the plaintiff suffered some sort of damage or injury as a result of the defendants negligence, be it physical, emotional, or monetary. Application: Duty – In this case, using the traditional rules, Alan would be considered a licensee, or a social guest/someone invited onto the property. This is true because he was an Emroid, and Dan put up a sign saying that Emory graduates can use any facility for free. As a licensee, Dan needs to warn Alan of known dangers. Breach –
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 10

387 Prelim 2_StudyGuide - QUSTION 1 Daran: Issue: The issue...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online