ipl-logo

Erin Daw V. Poppins Case Brief

556 Words3 Pages

On September 27, 2010, the plaintiff, Mary Poppins and Erin Daw, the victim were walking as pedestrians down the road. At approximately 9:00pm, the Defendant, Mr. Arm was driving southbound attempting to make a right turn when he hit Erin Daw. According to Poppins, “striking Erin Daw with great force and violence; failing to yield the right of way to Erin Daw.” Poppins was located approximately one block south from the accident scene at the time when the accident occurred. Poppins believes the accident occurred solely on negligence, reckless, and carelessness of the Defendant, Mr. Arms. As a result of witnessing the accident, Poppins experiences extreme emotional suffering, heart palpitations, sleeplessness, anxiety, and fear. From his emotional …show more content…

Mary Poppins claims that Mr. Arm was being negligence by failing to stop to the right of way of Erin Daw. In reality, Poppins was being negligent since she was a block away from Daw at the time of the accident. As the nanny and care taker of Daw, Poppins should have full control over the child and should not have been so far away from her. According to the Franklin Statue, “When traffic control signals are not in place or in operation and there is no signage indicating otherwise, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.” Mr. Arm followed the rule of the Franklin Statue. He did not see a signpost in the area when he was turning, so he slowed down. There was no pedestrian at the intersection while he was turning. Daw ran in front of the car. Mr. Arm did attempt to stop his car, but his brakes reacted slowly. I would not consider that a form of negligence, since Mr. Arm attempted to stop. It was out of his control that his brakes stopped

Show More
Related
1023 Words | 5 Pages

On the morning in question the road had several icy patches on it. The accident occurred when the van driven by Mr. Hart skidded on ice and struck Mrs. Forrester. The report states that the delivery van hit a tree after striking the victim. The report also claims that the impact occurred from speeds greater than 30 mph. Photographs of the scene and delivery van were taken by the police accident investigation team (Exhibits A, B, C: Police Report, Accident Investigation Report and Photographs,

Read More
605 Words | 3 Pages

The defendant argues the plaintiff was slightly intoxication and lost her balance causing her to fall off the stage. They pointed out she had got up on the stage with no problem and how they did have not have any previous accidents with this

Read More
541 Words | 3 Pages

Clawson stated that when he initially got into the vehicle being driven by Mr. Lopez, the barrels had already been placed in the bed of the truck. Mr. Clawson was on his phone and not paying attention to what was going on at the time of the incident. It wasn’t until after Mr. Lopez pulled his vehicle over to the highway’s shoulder that Mr. Clawson became aware of what happened. He did not observe the Plaintiff’s vehicle until the time the Plaintiff pulled the vehicle over to the highway’s shoulder. Mr. Clawson stated that after the incident, the Plaintiff did not complain of any physical injuries and seemed mostly concerned that he may be held responsible for any damage that may have occurred to his employer’s

Read More
984 Words | 4 Pages

She was also not reckless in her actions as stated in H. (A.D.) (2013) she did not “persist in the conduct despite knowing the risk” (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p.96). The second that Esther sensed that she had ran over something she stopped her car, in contrast, if she had continued moving her car she could have been held liable. Esther was also not willfully blind to the presence of Creakle; willful blindness is defined in Briscoe (2010) as being “deliberately ignorant” (Verdun-Jones, 2015, p.100). Esther’s caution before proceeding to move her truck implies that she was aware of the possibility that Creakle may have still been holding on, she only proceeded to move when she could no longer see him.

Read More
250 Words | 1 Pages

V1 (a tan 1997 Saturn SC NV license plate#23H097) was traveling northbound on Commerce Street in the number one travel lane at approximately 35 MPH. V1 failed to maintain lane while approaching a slight northwest curve of Commerce Street. V1 then struck the center pedestrian median causing moderate to severe damage to the undercarriage of the vehicle as well as severe damage to the wheels and tires. V1 came to rest approximately 50 feet from the median in the number one southbound lane of Commerce Street. The median sustained minor to moderate damage to the concrete curb and one of the reflective markers was damaged.

Read More
812 Words | 4 Pages

In this situation, Helen Brown can sue Rachel Goodman and Rachel Goodman can sue her employer, Michael Thomas. Helen Brown was the one who was injured in the car accident due to Rachel driving under the influence. Helen can sue Rachel for negligence because Rachel’s actions caused the accident and resulted in injuries and property damage. On the other hand,

Read More
438 Words | 2 Pages

In the third count of her complaint, Ellina contends that Gil negligently made statements about Ellina that caused Ellina damage. “A complaint alleging negligence must contain the following elements: (1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of the duty.” Lloyd v. GMC, 397 Md. 108, 132 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). Critically, a plaintiff need not make an assertion regarding the defendant’s subjective intent to state a claim for negligence. Indeed, Ellina’s allegation of negligence is silent as to whether Gil acted to cause Ellina injury, or whether he subjectively knew that his averments were false.

Read More
414 Words | 2 Pages

Judge Andrews dissented, stating that “negligence is a relative concept and proposed that every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others.” Negligence is not a wrongful act unless it’s a consequence in a task of a wrong by contravening one’s right. Because, the injury to plaintiff was not intentional by the defendant, it had to be shown that dropping a package was an obvious possibility of danger. Since the package was unmarked, there wasn’t any negligence to be found, therefore the Defendant was also not the immediate cause of plaintiff’s

Read More
1005 Words | 5 Pages

There should be another person or party that is partly or fully responsible for your injuries and damages due to their negligence. We can answer all of your questions, investigate the details of your injuries and damages, and determine the strength of your case. We also analyze the “assumption

Read More
527 Words | 3 Pages

The plaintiff lives at 606 East 49th Street in Brooklyn with his mother, aunt and grandfather. He is currently employed by Sprint. At the time of the accident he was employed by Metro PCS, he had worked with them for 2 years prior to the accident as a customer service agent. He had health insurance but no fault paid his medical bills. The accident occurred on May 11, 2012 in the evening.

Read More
978 Words | 4 Pages

Therefore, KHS did not cause the harm suffered by Mary. The second defense is contributory negligence. Mary saw that there was a football game going on and yet she still chose to walk down the sidelines behind the cheerleaders to take the shortcut back to residence. She was negligent in taking the standard of care to remove herself from danger’s way.

Read More
1682 Words | 7 Pages

His objection comes from the need to consistently apply legal principles in each situation. If it is acceptable for me to run through the light in this situation, then how can we apply the traffic laws with any integrity? Would there not be other situations in which a person might be able to argue that he is also free to ignore the law and run the light? Is it acceptable to go through the light only when one is sick? But how sick is sick?

Read More
1737 Words | 7 Pages

Sometimes, accidents happen. When one trips and falls, it’s an accident. There is no perpetrator, and nobody could have reasonably been expected to modify their behavior to prevent the incident. However, this type of situation is rare. Whether we realize it or not, there is almost always someone who is responsible to some extent.

Read More
917 Words | 4 Pages

My buddy, that is riding in front of me, signals that there is a driver swerving in front of us and he moves ahead to get a look at the diver. I can see him pointing and, I assume yelling as well, at the driver. He backs off while signaling to us that the driver is texting while driving. I start to speed up and right as I get to the rear wheel on the right sign, the driver gets into my lane without a turn signal and almost hits me. Angry, I get next to the car and look over and still see the driver on the phone, not paying attention to the road.

Read More
1963 Words | 8 Pages

Tice, 33 Cal. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948) FACTS: Plaintiff Summers's action was against defendants Tice and Simonson for an injury to his eye and face as the result of being struck by shotgun discharge on November 20, 1945 while plaintiff and the two defendants were hunting quail. At bench trial, the court found that as a direct result of the shooting by defendants, the shots struck plaintiff and that defendants were negligent. The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The defendants argued that they were not joint tortfeasors, and thus not jointly and severally liable, as they were not acting in concert, and that there was not sufficient evidence indicating which defendant was responsible for the the injuries.

Read More

More about Erin Daw V. Poppins Case Brief

Open Document