Loss of Consortium Claim Allows for some recovery for loss of companionship and

Loss of consortium claim allows for some recovery for

This preview shows page 58 - 64 out of 102 pages.

Loss of Consortium Claim Allows for some recovery for "loss of companionship and services. " Generally only allowed for legal spouses, children for parents, and parents for children. Tigrace has been legally married to Nancy Yurnblau for over 8 years and they had 3 children. Nancy and her children satisfy the relationship requirements to recover for a loss of consortium claim but the claim CANNOT be sustained if the primary physical harm victim's claim does not succeed. Emotional Distress Claim Wife hears husband die. Would fail the Impact rule, the zone of danger rule, the zone o-£. danger Page 12 of 13
Image of page 58
rule 2 and the bystander emotional harm rule. Must observe the harm not just merely hear it. ^~ IIED- Survives the death of the plaintiff. Question #5 Final Word Count =3378 Page 13 of 13
Image of page 59
Image of page 60
The judge determines duty. The factfinder may be used to make determinations which influencing whether or not a duty exists. Question #\ Final Word Count = 20 ^ ^8 Page 1 of 1 Exam taken with SofTest v11. 0. 666. 94885
Image of page 61
The plaintiff is 20% negligent. This means the plaintiff is entitled to $80, 000 in damages. If the defendant's are jointly and severally liable, the plaintiff can recover $80, 000 from defendant 1. If the jurisdiction requires 50% negligence by the defendant to be jointly and severally liable, the plaintiff can recover under both pure comparative fault and' modified comparative fault. Pure = proportional- plaintiff entitled to $40, 00 from defendant 1. Modified = plaintiff negligence < 50/51% - plaintiff entitled to $40, 000 from defendant 1 If the jurisdiction uses contributory negli^rfce, the plaintiffs negligence would bar him from recovery. 2^ Question #2 Final Word Count = 97 Page 1 of 1
Image of page 62
For To be found liable, a plaintiff only needs to establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence = plaintiff only needs to show that evidence supporting claim is greater than half. In these jurisdictions, 5 out of the 9 jurors represents more than half of the jury. The fact that the jury is so split also provides a rationale for letting the case go to trial. A jury split like this examplifes why the case should go to the finder of fact, as a reasonable juror could obviously find for either party. Against It can be argued that a preponderance of the evidence means that each juror must feel that the preponderance of the evidence supported a particular party. By enforcing liability in a 5-4 split, it leaves 4 members of the jury unconvinced. This can lead to an argument in fairness. If there was great debate, the defendant might not feel that they were given a fair shot at proving their case. Several factors could influence that last juror's decision to find for one party or the other. Jurisdictions with this rule also leave themselves open for a lot of appeals. If one person represents the difference between liability and non-liability, either decision can create significant doubt and the losing party will look for any opportunity to appeal the decision. This will have significant administrative effects. Courts will not be able to look at
Image of page 63
Image of page 64

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 102 pages?

  • Fall '14
  • Marie Boyd
  • F15_Torts Smith

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture