This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 53 C HAPTER 7 N EGLIGENCE AND S TRICT L IABILITY A NSWERS TO Q UESTIONS AT THE E NDS OF THE C ASES CASE 7.1 — (PAGE 146) WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Should the result in this case have been different if, in all the years that the napkin-throwing tradition existed, no one had ever fallen on the napkins before Izquierdo? No. At the trial in this case, the manager of Giorgio's testified that “[i]n all the years the napkin-throwing tradition has existed, no one has ever fallen on them before Izquierdo's fall.” The appellate court did not find this persuasive. In fact, if someone had fallen on the napkins before Izquierdo, then she would have had additional support for her argument that the club was negligent. THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION Does a plaintiff's knowledge of a dangerous condition erase a defendant's potential liability for negligently permitting the dangerous condition to exist? Explain. No. This knowledge merely raises an issue of comparative negligence. As the court states in the Izquierdo case, “although Giorgio's claimed that the napkin-throwing was known by Izquierdo and the existence of napkins on the floor was obvious, this would merely discharge the landowner's duty to warn. It does not discharge the landowner's duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.” CASE 7.2 — (PAGE 149) THE GLOBAL DIMENSION What would be the advantages and disadvantages of a universal principle of proximate cause applied everywhere by all courts in all relevant cases? Discuss. The advantages might include those underlying common law systems generally: predictability and stability, which can improve the climate for economic development and reinforce the notion of personal accountability. The disadvantages might 54 UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES include a lack of adaptability to local circumstances, particularly cultural differences, economic disparities, political realities, and personal expectations. CASE 7.3 — (PAGE 151) 1A. What is the basis underlying the defense of assumption of risk, and how does that basis support the court’s de cision in the Sutton case? The basis for the defense of assumption of risk is knowledge and consent — knowing a risk, a party voluntarily consents to it. In the Sutton case, the plaintiff, after more than fourteen years of attending soccer games, knew the risk of an errant kick and assumed that risk by attending the tournament at which he was hit by a ball and injured. 2A. Had the plaintiffs prevailed, how might the sites for soccer matches be different today? Most likely, fences and backstops would be common, and spectators would be relegated to seating distanced from the fields. It is also possible that soccer games would become less common and that admission would be charged to cover the increased cost of additional insurance....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 06/09/2010 for the course BIOL 1001 taught by Professor Minor during the Spring '08 term at LSU.
- Spring '08