ipl-logo

Dick Vs Dick Case Study

170 Words1 Pages
Duty- It was the responsibility of Dick to make sure his master Cylinder was installed correctly. Under the reasonable person test, a resonable person would have made sure the master cylinder was installed correctly. Breech of duty- Dick understood that if he could not break his car in an emergency it could cause damage. Dick also did not have his dog properly placed in vehicle. Proximate cause- Because of the tortfeasor lack of diligence, he is responsible for any medical expenses of Penelope, or any damages thats occurred for the proximate cause. If the damages caused any future damages from the original incident that are foressable then dick is responsible if proven in court. Actual Harm: Dick is responsible for the damages of the
Open Document