So, even if it was caused by a technical problem with the car, it would still be considered negligence?
If it helps, think about who's the least-cost avoider on whom you would like to place the damages arising from the incident: the car owner who should get his brakes checked regularly or the lady innocently and legally crossing the street? If someone has to pay, I think common sense would say the driver.
But more generally, nothing is ever a certainty in law. That's why we have judges and juries...to use their expertise (or lack thereof) to fill in the gaps/reconcile conflict facts. The default rule is to send the case to the jury and let them weigh everything.
ETA: And if it was a design malfunction with the car, then the driver could ask the judge to join the car company, or he could sue the company in a separate action.
I expect that vehicle controls are standard procedure after accidents like this.
Quote from: Mr. Cookie on May 19, 2007, 10:29:35 PMI expect that vehicle controls are standard procedure after accidents like this.What do you mean by "vehicle controls"? If you're talking about a company taking action to correct the defect after an accident, evidence of that would probably be barred in court (as a subsequent remedial measure).
I had Evidence the first day, then property and today (Saturday) I had Con Lawgood grief.I did good on the evidence portion because I just took that class last fall property ... about 45% But today in Con law I TOTALLY bombed. I didn't realize that Con law on the bar was largely topics that were taught in federal courts class which, of course, I didn't take and first amendment, which I didn't take either. I randomly knew the establishment clause stuff but the rest...not a chance. I naively thought con law would be about...what I learned in con law. But...not so much.Anyway...good luck to all. Torts tomorrow, Fun times.
Quote from: Alci on May 16, 2007, 10:52:07 PMC. I think it can be inferred. Res ipsa loquitur, right? Properly parked cars don't just roll down hills. Let the jury weigh the evidence. Alternatively, B.That's correct. The answer is C. Its a definite case of res ipsa.For the 0L's, res ipsa loquitur is latin for "the thing speaks for itself" - its a tort law doctrine that allows a jury to infer negligence where you don't quite have all the pieces to the puzzle in situations where negligence must have happened because things ordinarily wouldn't have ended up how they did unless somebody was negligenct - like the car rolling down the hill.
C. I think it can be inferred. Res ipsa loquitur, right? Properly parked cars don't just roll down hills. Let the jury weigh the evidence. Alternatively, B.
RIL was one of the easier tort questions for me to answer. Once you learn the doctrine, it is easy to see it set up in a fact pattern. All of the 0Ls and other onlookers, don't freak out. If you take PMBR you should be fine. I thought it was very helpful in terms of getting you accustomed to studying all day, and letting me know where my weak areas are on the multistate. I'm glad I invested the $620.00.
w00t! Post a crim question...I had an awful prof for that and will probably have to learn from scratch.
Page created in 0.424 seconds with 18 queries.