Prelim 2 Review sheet_StudyGuide

Prelim 2 Review sheet_StudyGuide - Wednesday Exam Issue The...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Wednesday Exam Issue The issue presented for Jess is, is Dan liable for the injuries Jess sustained while being on the Ithaca Beer Company Resort. Rule In order to prove that Dan is liable for Jess’s injuries, Jess must demonstrate that the following: Duty – the defendant had a duty to ensure that the plaintiff’s safety 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 Application Duty – Given the common law rule, Jess would be considered an invitee of Dan’s, since he is there for a business purpose. This means that Dan owes the highest standard of care to Jess, that of reasonable care. He has a duty to keep the dock safe and secure for his guests. Breach of duty – Since the deck was damaged for some time, was not fixed, and as a result was destroyed by a wake; Dan breached his duty of reasonable care to Jess. Cause – It was Dan’s negligence with regards to his dock and its poor condition, that resulted in its collapse. Damage – As a result of Dan’s negligence, Jess suffered a broken wrist from a falling piece of the dock. Conclusion Since Jess was a guest at Dan’s resort (an invitee under traditional common law), Dan had a duty to provide him with reasonable care. Since he breached his duty, which resulted in Jess’s injury, Dan would most likely be found guilty of negligence. Neal
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Wednesday Exam Issue Is Dan guilty of negligence with regards to Neal and liable for his lacerations. Rule In order to prove that Dan is liable for Neal’s injuries, Neal must demonstrate that the following: Duty – the defendant had a duty to ensure that the plaintiff’s safety 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 Application Duty – The duty owed to Neal is that of a licensee. This means that Dan must notify Neal of all known dangers on premises. Breach of duty - Since Dan was not aware of the dock’s condition, he could not have notified Neal regarding its potential danger. Cause – Since Dan did not breach his duty, there is no cause. Damage – Neal did have lacerations from the collapse of the dock. Conclusion Since under traditional common law Dan only needs to notify licensees of known dangers, and the deck’s poor condition was not known, Dan would not be found guilty of negligence in Neal’s case. Spencer
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.

This test prep was uploaded on 02/19/2009 for the course H ADM 387 taught by Professor Dsherwyn during the Fall '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 12

Prelim 2 Review sheet_StudyGuide - Wednesday Exam Issue The...

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