Davenport Brief

Davenport Brief - would not have been injured but for the...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Issue : Can Davenport recover for negligence from Cotton Hope Plantation, where Davenport has assumption of risk? Rule : assumption of risk - is the plaintiffs voluntary consent to a known danger. implied - plaintiffs knowledge and voluntariness inferred from the facts. expressly - assumed risk of injury by entering into a contract. comparative negligence - courts seek to determine the relative negligence of the parties and award damages in proportion to the degree of negligence determined. Negligence is a duty owed to a plaintiff, that was beached by the defendant that caused injury to the plaintiff and the injury was from the breach of the duty . Application : Davenport argues that CHP owes duty, because the reason CHP uses lighting in the complex, it was foreseeable that injury may arise without the proper lighting. The CHP breached the duty because the light burned out and Davenport complained of the problem and CHP did not replace the light. Davenport used the stairway that was not properly lit and sustained injury. Davenport
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: would not have been injured but for the stairway that was not properly lighted. CHP argues that even though a duty is owed to Davenport, it was Davenport that used the dark stairway to climb the stairs, instead of using the alternate safer route, that Davenport was aware of. CHP did not breach the duty, as it was Davenports responsibility when knowingly using a dark stairway. CHP agrees that Davenport was injured. But, CHP did not breach the duty, that was responsible for Davenports injury. Davenport knowingly used a dark stairway, instead of a safer route and assumed the risk of danger. Conclusion : Yes Davenport may recover for negligence in a assumption of risk case, because it was determined that the negligence was committed equally by Davenport and CHP. Davenport may seek compensatory damages for medical and lost wages, that will be awarded at a 50% due to his equal involvement of the negligence. Negligence cases do not qualify for punitive damages....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online