What Happened To Renault's Negligence?

1032 Words5 Pages

The family of the driver of the Renault does have a negligence case against James. Negligence is “the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.” (144) James has committed negligence because he failed to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would do. The first example of this failure is that James chose to drive home despite knowing that he had too much to drink. A reasonable person who knows how dangerous it is to drive under the influence would have ordered an Uber or called a friend to pick him up. The second offense that James has committed is driving through the orange cones and into the opposing traffic. While one could argue that he is merely attempting …show more content…

Assumption of risk does not apply in the situation because there is no such thing as a contract warning of damage when driving or a warning of crashes on the bridge in this situation. It is unnecessary and irrelevant. James cannot use the superseding cause because his drunk driving was a direct cause of the crash. However, he could use the superseding cause defense against the pedestrian and the following accidents that occurred in relation to the pedestrian’s reaction. This is because the pedestrian’s action of falling off the bridge was not a foreseeable action. James cannot use the defense of contributory or comparative negligence because the Renault driver was merely driving on the bridge like a normal person while James was the one …show more content…

It is possible that the car repair company could use the superseding cause in that they did not foresee the gasoline filler pipe causing flames. However, this is a poor defense cause because even a small bump could cause the gasoline filler pipe to loosen and erupt. In addition, the mechanics of the company are responsible in ensuring everything is properly fixed because they are experts in this field. This argument is also against the possibility of comparative negligence as a small bump could cause the gasoline filler pipe to erupt. Contributory negligence will also not be a proper defense for the car repair company because if the comapny had properly bolted the pipe, then the car would have not burst into flames. Res Ipsa Loquitar, the facts speak for