Negligence is a particular type of tort action that involves something the law calls a “duty of care.” The standard of care depends on the facts and circumstances of the case but, generally, the duty of care, in its broadest sense, means each of us should behave responsibly and sensibly, in the way a reasonable person would behave.
To be guilty of negligence, a defendant in a lawsuit must breach that duty of care, and the breach of duty must be the cause of harm to the plaintiff.
The law looks at two types of causationâ€”actual cause and proximate cause. Often, injury and harm is the result of a chain of events. The person who is the actual cause may or may not be legally responsible. Proximate cause is that act in the natural, direct, uninterrupted sequence of events without which the injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause seeks to decide who, in that chain of events, is responsible for the harm. This can get complicated.
First case: Henry runs the red light and, as a result, collides with Mary’s car which is proceeding lawfully through the intersection, injuring Mary. Henry’s negligence is both the actual and proximate cause of Mary’s injury.
Second case: Henry is stopped at the red light. Marvin is talking on his cell phone and fails to stop his car, rear-ending Henry, and sending his car into the intersection where it collides with Mary’s car, injuring Mary. Henry is the actual, but not the legal cause, of Mary’s injury. Marvin’s actions are the proximate cause of Mary’s injury; his actions are the actual cause, sometimes called the “cause in fact”, of the harm.
In order to properly consider the following problem, you should review the material in your text at pages 296 and 297; read Herrara et al v. Quality Pontiac; review McCollum v. CBS, especially Part 2 (a) of the opinion, which you will find in Doc Sharing.
Susie Marks was seriously injured when the truck in which she was riding failed to negotiate a left turn. On the evening in question, Susie got a ride with Orson to the Elsewhere City Park, where she met her friend, Jerry, and his girlfriend, Kate. Orson said he would pick Susie up at 11:00 p.m. when the park closed. Jerry was a minor who had only been licensed to drive for a few months. He was driving a small truck, the bed of which was covered by a camper shell.
At 11:00 p.m. they were approached by Officer Ruthless of the Elsewhere Police Department, who told them they had to leave the park since there was a curfew and the park was closing. Jerry and Kate got into the truck and Ruthless told Susie to get in the back of the truck. (This state allowed people to ride in the backs of camper trucks without seatbelts.)
Susie told Ruthless she wanted to wait for Orson, or she could walk home, but Ruthless told her to get in the truck. Ruthless told Jerry: “Get everybody out of here,” and that “if you guys don’t get out of here, curfew will be enforced.”
After leaving the park, Jerry made two stops, one just four doors down from Susie’s house. Susie did not leave the truck. Jerry lost control of his truck while making a left turn and Susie was seriously injured when the truck overturned. Approximately one-half hour ensued between the time the group left the park area and the time of the accident.
Following the accident, Susie filed a complaint against the City of Elsewhere, Ruthless, and a number of other defendants. The complaint alleged that the City and Ruthless were liable because Ruthless had negligently ordered Suzie to ride in the back of the truck.
You are the judge in the case. Does Susie have a case against Ruthless? Is Ruthless the proximate cause of Susie’s injuries?
Read the scenario summary above and prepare an essay rendering your decision. The components of a legal decision must include the following.
Factual Summary: Provide a succinct and accurate description of the scenario at hand. Summarize the scenario to include all relevant facts.
Issue(s): Restate or summarize the question. What is the legal question you are going to answer?
Legal Concept(s): Identify and discuss one or more legal concepts from the course material when exploring the problem at hand. Define the legal concept(s) and explain how the concept(s) relate(s) to the given scenario.
Analysis/Conclusion: Analyze the factual scenario in relation to the legal concept in order to reach a well-reasoned conclusion. Be sure to apply the legal concept correctly toward solving the legal issue.
The paper should be double-spaced in 12-point font and approximately 500 words. At least two sources must be correctly cited using APA citations, including both in-text parenthetical citations and an end-of-text list of references.
week 5 simulation
his simulation involves a hearing at the trial court level on a motion for summary judgment in a case involving the employer’s liability for alleged sexual harassment.
Before a case goes to trial, the parties use various motions to refine and define the issues. One such motion is the Motion for Summary Judgment. In this case, the employer’s Motion for Summary judgment claims that the employee has failed to state sufficient facts for a jury to be able to decide that a) the conduct complained of constitutes sexual harassment and b) the employee who allegedly is guilty of harassment is a “supervisor”, and c) that the company maintained a “hostile workplace.”
Motions for Summary Judgment are submitted in writing and are supported by written arguments, called Briefs. Judges will look at the motions, the briefs, and any other sworn statements that parties have made, such as oral depositions or sworn answers to discovery (see page 171 in your text) and will also hear oral argument from the parties’ attorneys on the issues raised in the motion.
The moving party, in this case Big Car Company, is attempting to convince the judge that its employee, Clarence, did not sexually harass Maybelle Darcy, and that Clarence is not a supervisor. To win its point, Big Car must convince the judge the facts stated by Ms Darcy are not sufficient at law to constitute sexual harassment, are not sufficient at law to show that there was a “hostile work environment” and are not sufficient at law to show that Clarence is a supervisor.
Ms Darcy, in order to get her case to a jury, must convince the judge of the opposite.
Supervisors and middle managers are routinely named as defendants in sexual harassment cases. The awards can be quite large. The cases themselves can take many years to resolve. The case upon which this simulation is based was in litigation for three full years.
Before you watch the simulation, review the material that follows. Watch the simulation, then complete the assignment below.
- In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 and Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17, the Supreme Court set out tests for “hostile workplace.” The full opinions can be found in Doc Sharing
We directed courts to determine whether an environment is sufficiently hostile or abusive by “looking at all the circumstances,” including the “frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.”. Most recently, we explained that Title VII does not prohibit “genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men and women routinely interact with members of the same sex and of the opposite sex.”…”simple teasing,” offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the “terms and conditions of employment.”
(It is not) “the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing.” Faragher
“…in assessing a hostile environment claim, the totality of the circumstances must be examined, including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Harris v. Forklift
Conduct must be objectively offensive to a “reasonable person” and seen as subjectively offensive by the person claiming sexual harassment.
- EEOC Enforcement Guidance Bulletin on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (the full text can be found in Doc Sharing) states the Supreme Court has made clear that employers are subject to vicarious liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors. The bulletin gives the following information on who is a “supervisor”. (The entire bulletin can be found in Doc Sharing)
An individual qualifies as an employee’s “supervisor” if:
- the individual has authority to undertake or recommend tangible employment decisions affecting the employee; or
- the individual has authority to direct the employee’s daily work activities.