Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's  (Read 1432 times)

Barbaloot

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
    • Email
TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's
« on: April 22, 2005, 11:57:19 AM »
The Test……..


Two teenagers, Abel and Baker, were hiking in the woods. Abel fell down a ravine and  broke his leg. Baker hiked back to a lonely country road to summon for help. He waited and waited and waited. It began to get dark when finally a car came down the road….

Baker hailed the car down and he told the Driver that his friend broke his leg and could he drive him to get help.

The Driver stated, “Well, I have had a few drinks too many but get in anyway.”

They drove down the road but the Driver lost control of his car and hit a tree injuring Baker. Baker now wants to sue Driver for his injuries.

There is only ONE law that you need to be concerned of in this region. The law states:

"All those who knowingly and voluntarily assume a risk of danger cannot recover.

Now the issue is, can Baker recover against his injuries against the Driver."

Discuss…

lsatposter

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
  • Northwestern '08
    • View Profile
Re: TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2005, 12:40:01 PM »
"All those who knowingly and voluntarily assume a risk of danger cannot recover."

Well, one could take issue with the intent of the law. In other words, the statute may not have been intended to allow citizens to waive their right to recover damages in those cases where the risk of danger results for an unlawful act on the part of the defendent in a lawsuit.

For instance, the law may apply to citizens who choose to legaly go bungy jumping despite the obvious risks involved and then file suit against the bungy jumping company for some injury related to the act. Also, think skiing. One might argue that these people cannot seek damages under the statute.   

Also, I start thinking about what constitutes "knowing" under the statutary definition...
Attending: Northwestern School of Law

cascagrossa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2629
    • View Profile
Re: TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2005, 12:46:44 PM »


Also, I start thinking about what constitutes "knowing" under the statutary definition...


especially in the case of teenagers(is baker 13,14,15,16, or 17?)

tbraughler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44
    • AOL Instant Messenger - tbraughler
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2005, 12:49:08 PM »


Also, I start thinking about what constitutes "knowing" under the statutary definition...


especially in the case of teenagers(is baker 13,14,15,16, or 17?)

I agree...Baker may not "know" that driving with people who have been drinking is dangerous.
2-accept. (NESL, Capital)
6(ouch! eh, I take it.)-rejections
1-waitlists
Attending: NESL

cascagrossa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2629
    • View Profile
Re: TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2005, 12:52:10 PM »
im also not sure if the gravity of the situation would matter.  its getting dark and no other cars have been spotted for the entire day so its not likely that another will pass by if baker decides not to accept this drivers offer.  he doesnt really have any other option but to accept this ride and try to get to town because his friend is stuck alone in a ravine with a broken leg and its now night time.

lsatposter

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
  • Northwestern '08
    • View Profile
Re: TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2005, 12:53:21 PM »
Or more than just that...Does the drivers comments constitute a full enough disclosure on the defendents part for the teenager to sufficiently be characterized as knowingly and voluntarily assuming a risk of danger? Was the comment made as a joke? What was his tone, his demenour?

And of course if the teenager is a minor, can he waive this right?
Attending: Northwestern School of Law

cascagrossa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2629
    • View Profile
Re: TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2005, 01:10:34 PM »
post the answer please

lsatposter

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
  • Northwestern '08
    • View Profile
Re: TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2005, 01:11:23 PM »
post the answer please

There is no right answer, only good arguments!
Attending: Northwestern School of Law

cascagrossa

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2629
    • View Profile
Re: TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2005, 01:15:17 PM »
haha yea, but i was guessing that this comes from a book and there is a suggested answer.

Esq

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: TEST FOR INCOMING 1L's
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2005, 12:58:57 PM »
ISSUE: The issue is whether a person attempting a rescue who enters into a vehicle when the driver has informed the person that the driver has been drinking would be barred from recovering for injuries caused by the driver by the assumption of the risk statute. 

RULE:  The rule is that where a plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumes a risk, the defendant has a defense of assumption of the risk that precludes the plaintiff from recovering. The statute creates no exceptions for minors. However, one exception where the assumption of the risk defense does not apply has to do with an emergency situation. The emergency exception is reflected in the language of the statute because B did not voluntarily assume a risk created by the emergency.

APPLICATION: Here, based solely on the facts presented, an emergency exists because A has a broken leg and is incapable of walking and is helpless in the wilderness as night is falling. B, who has no other alternative because it is a lonely road and B has already waited for a long time before this one car has appeared, is reacting to that emergency and is trying to rescue A.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, because an emergency exists in a rescue situation, the assumption of the risk defense may not apply to B and B may seek a recovery from the driver for B's injuries.