Details of this Paper

devry Laws310 week 3 assignment

Description

solution


Question

Question;Negligence is a particular type of tort action that involves something the law calls a "duty of care." The standard of care depends on the facts and circumstances of the case but, generally, the duty of care, in its broadest sense, means each of us should behave responsibly and sensibly, in the way a reasonable person would behave.To be guilty of negligence, a defendant in a lawsuit must breach that duty of care, and the breach of duty must be the cause of harm to the plaintiff.The law looks at two types of causation?actual cause and proximate cause. Often, injury and harm is the result of a chain of events. The person who is the actual cause may or may not be legally responsible. Proximate cause is that act in the natural, direct, uninterrupted sequence of events without which the injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause seeks to decide who, in that chain of events, is responsible for the harm. This can get complicated.First case: Henry runs the red light and, as a result, collides with Mary's car which is proceeding lawfully through the intersection, injuring Mary. Henry's negligence is both the actual and proximate cause of Mary's injury.Second case: Henry is stopped at the red light. Marvin is talking on his cell phone and fails to stop his car, rear-ending Henry, and sending his car into the intersection where it collides with Mary's car, injuring Mary. Henry is the actual, but not the legal cause, of Mary's injury. Marvin's actions are the proximate cause of Mary's injury, his actions are the actual cause, sometimes called the "cause in fact", of the harm.In order to properly consider the following problem, you should review the material in your text at pages 296 and 297, read Herrara et al v. Quality Pontiac, review McCollum v. CBS, especially Part 2 (a) of the opinion, which you will find in Doc Sharing.ScenarioSusie Marks was seriously injured when the truck in which she was riding failed to negotiate a left turn. On the evening in question, Susie got a ride with Orson to the Elsewhere City Park, where she met her friend, Jerry, and his girlfriend, Kate. Orson said he would pick Susie up at 11:00 p.m. when the park closed. Jerry was a minor who had only been licensed to drive for a few months. He was driving a small truck, the bed of which was covered by a camper shell.At 11:00 p.m. they were approached by Officer Ruthless of the Elsewhere Police Department, who told them they had to leave the park since there was a curfew and the park was closing. Jerry and Kate got into the truck and Ruthless told Susie to get in the back of the truck. (This state allowed people to ride in the backs of camper trucks without seatbelts.)Susie told Ruthless she wanted to wait for Orson, or she could walk home, but Ruthless told her to get in the truck. Ruthless told Jerry: "Get everybody out of here," and that "if you guys don't get out of here, curfew will be enforced."After leaving the park, Jerry made two stops, one just four doors down from Susie's house. Susie did not leave the truck. Jerry lost control of his truck while making a left turn and Susie was seriously injured when the truck overturned. Approximately one-half hour ensued between the time the group left the park area and the time of the accident.Following the accident, Susie filed a complaint against the City of Elsewhere, Ruthless, and a number of other defendants. The complaint alleged that the City and Ruthless were liable because Ruthless had negligently ordered Suzie to ride in the back of the truck.Your Role/AssignmentYou are the judge in the case. Does Susie have a case against Ruthless? Is Ruthless the proximate cause of Susie's injuries?Key PlayersTitle/Role/CharacterName: Susie MarksTitle: PlaintiffGender: female (under 18)I only live about six blocks from the park. After Officer Ruthless ordered us to leave the park, I told him that I only lived up the street, and could walk home. Officer Ruthless paid no attention to me, he did not acknowledge what I said, he just ordered everyone to get into the truck. If I had been given a choice, I would have waited for Orson, or walked home from the park. Ruthless did not give me any alternative to riding in the back of Jerry's truck. But for that, I wouldn't have ended up in traction and missed the first semester of my senior year.Name: Officer RuthlessTitle: DefendantGender: Male, about 35It's the law that minors have an 11:00 p.m. curfew, and the park closes at 11:00 p.m. Jerry, Kate, and Susie were together, and Jerry had no problem with giving Susie a ride. I had no idea when Orson might arrive, and I couldn't wait around at the park, since I had other duties. I also didn't think it was safe for Susie to walk a mile home that late at night. Those kids rode around for half an hour after they left the park, and Susie could easily have gotten home when Jerry made his second stop.ActivityRead the scenario summary above and prepare an essay rendering your decision. The components of a legal decision must include the following.Factual Summary: Provide a succinct and accurate description of the scenario at hand. Summarize the scenario to include all relevant facts.Issue(s): Restate or summarize the question. What is the legal question you are going to answer?Legal Concept(s): Identify and discuss one or more legal concepts from the course material when exploring the problem at hand. Define the legal concept(s) and explain how the concept(s) relate(s) to the given scenario.Analysis/Conclusion: Analyze the factual scenario in relation to the legal concept in order to reach a well-reasoned conclusion. Be sure to apply the legal concept correctly toward solving the legal issue.The paper should be double-spaced in 12-point font and approximately 500 words. At least two sources must be correctly cited using APA citations, including both in-text parenthetical citations and an end-of-text list of references.Grading RubricCategoriesMeets All Requirements(60 points)Meets Most Requirements(50-30 points)Meets Some Requirements(20-10 points)Points Achieved andCommentsFactual SummaryStudent gives a succinct and accurate description of the scenario. Student does an excellent job summarizing the scenario to include all relevant facts. (10 points)Student does a great job describing the scenario. Summary includes most of the relevant facts. (8-6 points)Student does a good job describing the scenario. Some of the relevant facts are included. (3-2 points)Identifying the Legal Issue(s) PresentedStudent has done an excellent job identifying the legal Issue(s) by clearly restating or summarizing the question(s) to be answered through legal and factual analysis. (12 points)Student has done a good job identifying the legal Issue(s), but could have more clearly restated or summarized the question(s) to be answered through legal and factual analysis. (10-6 points)Student did not fully restate or summarize the question(s) to be answered through legal and factual analysis. (3-2 points)Legal ConceptsStudent has thoroughly discussed one or more legal concepts from the course material when exploring the problem at hand. Student has correctly defined the legal concept(s) and explained how the concept(s) relate(s) to the given scenario. (12 points)Student does a great jobdiscussing at least one of the legal concepts from the course material, but could have more thoroughly defined the legal concept(s) and explained how the concept(s) relate to the given scenario. (10-6 points)Student does not fully discuss at least one of the legal concepts from the course material and does not fully explain how the concept relates to the given scenario. (3-2 points)Analysis/ConclusionStudent has clearly demonstrated an in-depth understanding of the task at hand by correctly and thoroughly analyzing the factual scenario in relation to the legal concept in order to reach a well-reasoned conclusion. The analysis is logical and the student does an excellent job applying the legal concept correctly toward solving the legal issue. (14 points)Student has done a good job demonstrating an understanding of the task at hand, but could have more thoroughly analyzed the factual scenario in relation to the legal concept in order to reach a well-reasoned conclusion. The student could have further demonstrated a logical analysis of the legal concept toward solving the legal issue. (12-6 points)Student did not demonstrate a thorough understanding of the task at hand by not thoroughly analyzing the factual scenario in relation to the legal concept. Student did not reach a well-reasoned conclusion. (3-2 points)FormatStudent meets all formatting requirements. Paper is double-spaced in 12-point font and is approximately 500 words. At least two sources have been cited correctly using APA citations, both in-text parenthetical citations and an end-of-text list of references. Paper has no grammar or spelling problems and is well written. Paragraph transitions are present and logical and flow is maintained throughout the response. Sentences are complete, clear, and concise. (12 points)Student meets most formatting requirements. Paper is double spaced in 12-point font and is 500 or almost 500 words. One to two sources have been cited using fairly accurate APA formatting. Paper has few grammar or spelling problems and is fairly well written. Paragraph transitions are mostly present and logical and a good flow is maintained throughout most of the response. Sentences are mostly complete, clear, and concise. (10-6 points)Student has not substantially complied with formatting requirements. Paper may have major grammar or spelling problems and is not well written. Student may not have cited at least one source in APA format. Some paragraph transitions are present, but response lacks logic and flow throughout. Some sentences are complete, clear, and concise. (3-2 points)Additional RequirementsLevel of Detail: Show all workOther Requirements: Negligence is a particular type of tort action that involves something the law calls a "duty of care." The standard of care depends on the facts and circumstances of the case but, generally, the duty of care, in its broadest sense, means each of us should behave responsibly and sensibly, in the way a reasonable person would behave.To be guilty of negligence, a defendant in a lawsuit must breach that duty of care, and the breach of duty must be the cause of harm to the plaintiff.The law looks at two types of causation?actual cause and proximate cause. Often, injury and harm is the result of a chain of events. The person who is the actual cause may or may not be legally responsible. Proximate cause is that act in the natural, direct, uninterrupted sequence of events without which the injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause seeks to decide who, in that chain of events, is responsible for the harm. This can get complicated.First case: Henry runs the red light and, as a result, collides with Mary's car which is proceeding lawfully through the intersection, injuring Mary. Henry's negligence is both the actual and proximate

 

Paper#59114 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $26
SiteLock