Raleigh Brief - to travel from construction trailers to job...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing and Heating, Inc. Issue : Is Performance Plumbing and Heating liable for negligence to Raleigh? Rule : Prima facie case - first appearance or first sight case Negligence: 1)existence of a legal duty to the plaintiff 2)the defendant breached the duty 3)the plaintiff was injured 4) the defendants breach of duty caused the injury. Application : The Raleighs argues that Performance Plumbing owed a duty, because Weese possessed a dangerous propensity(tendency) to be a dangerous driver. If Performance Plumbing conducted further investigation, Weese reckless driving history and suspended license would have been discovered. Even though we expected Weese to drive as part of his employment, but this only involved him
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: to travel from construction trailers to job sites and back. This commute was to be made on personal time, and is no different than any other employee going to and from a job. Conclusion : No Performance Plumbing and Heating is not liable for negligence to Raleigh, because no legal duty was owed to Raleigh. The driver Weese was considered like any, commuting from and to a job site, off duty and does not constitute a legal duty by PPH to Raleigh. If PPH was found liable, Raleigh would collect compensatory damages for medical expenses, repair costs, lost wages, and emotional distress recovery costs. Since negligence is not intentional, Raleigh may not seek 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