Gonzalez Attached Brief

Gonzalez Attached Brief - Gonzalez v. Garcia Issue Can...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Gonzalez v. Garcia Issue Can Gonzalez recover for negligence from Garcia? Rule assumption of risk - is the plaintiffs voluntary consent to a known danger. implied - plaintiffs knowledge and voluntariness inferred from the facts. 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 Gonzalez argues that Garcia owed duty, because it was foreseeable that when Garcia drove while intoxicated with a blood alcohol level .20% an increased likelihood of any accident will occur. Garcia was drunk, refused Gonzalez to drive and got into a car accident. Garcia got into a car accident that injured Gonzalez. Gonzalez would not have been injured, but for the fact that Garcia drank, got behind the way and had a one-car accident. Garcia argues that even though a duty was owed to Gonzalez, Gonzalez assumed the risk by
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the 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