e nature of the relationship between Carter and Bailey is both of them, being legal drivers who are expected to act a certain way while driving a vehicle.
Conclusion/Recommendation
•MUST be based on your prior analysis
•Brief
•CONCISE
Both negligence and strict liability are the two major legal lawsuits that are within this case. First, in order to properly evaluate this case and the potential applicable legal concepts, we must first look at the elements that must be proven which are needed to win a negligence case which the courts in Fern A. Fogel V. Get ‘N Go Markets, Inc. as, “(1) that a duty was owed to the plaintiff; (2) that defendant breached that duty; (3) that the breach, actually (in fact) and legally (proximately) caused; (4) plaintiff to suffer damage.” To elucidate on this meaning, we will effectively show all the elements by analyzing the strengths for both sides, of the plaintiff and the defendant, to prove the strength of the case. All of the major elements within this negligence claim are easily arguable and in the favor of Carter which will be proven through proper analysis by our legal team.
When we are evaluating the first concept of negligence, we must prove all three elements of there being a duty that is owed to Carter by Bailey which are broken into three parts as, (1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) public policy concerns. The existence of any one of these factors is sufficient for a court to impose a duty, defined by Northern Gould Public Service Co. v. Patil, 1 Gou.3d 462, 466 (Gou. 2000). The nature of the relationship between Carter and Bailey is both of them, being legal drivers who are expected to act a certain way while driving a vehicle. Because Bailey is expected to act as any reasonable person would on the road, this proves that there does not need to be an alliance with each other regarding a relationship. A possible argument that Bailey could have against the nature of the relationship would be that Bailey does have a relationship with other drivers, as she could only worry about her own safety concerns. The foreseeability is easily justified on Carter’s behalf because it was up to the discretion of Bailey to wear flip flops while driving, therefore endangering those lives of others. A potential argument that Bailey could argue against the foreseeability of harm could be that she believed that wearing flip flops while driving could not determine any foreseen harm. There are no public policies that prohibit drivers from the selection of footwear they chose while driving, meaning that Bailey has a very strong argument against analyzing a public policy because there is none.
The second element of negligence that must be proven within the court is proving that bailey indeed did breach the duty that she owed to you as a driver and this is proved by defining that breach of duty as, “(1)the probability of the accident’s occurring; (2) the magnitude or gravity of the injury suffered by the plaintiff if an accident occurs; and (3) the burden placed on the defendant to take adequate precautions to avert the accident.” Judge Learned Hand, in the case of United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (Second Circuit, 1947). Wearing flip flops, sandals, or any open toed shoes while driving is a strong argument because that is indeed a breach of duty that Bailey owed while driving a vehicle. Wearing sandals can lead to a distraction when driving because it withdraws the attention from the road to worrying about the potential risks that may arise if it gets stuck, endangering the lives of those around her. Bailey will have a difficult time arguing against the breach of the duty that she owes while driving, because she cannot properly prove that she did not breach her duty as she wore sandals that can pose a potential danger to those around her without admonishing them of that danger.
Causation is often broken into two separate parts, which is actual and proximate, but one of the primary focuses we are having our attention towards is the actual cause of the breach that was done by Bailey’s act. Causation must be proven by “determine whether the defendant’s negligence has caused plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff must demonstrate that but for the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff would not have sustained the loss.” (Curtis B. Wiley V. Peat Young & Company) The actual cause of the damages that arises from Bailey’s negligence is easily provable and you will have a strong argument for, because of flip flop getting lodged under the pedal which further caused the accident to happen. The reason that you have a strong argument with proving actual cause of Bailey’s negligence is because of having a “But for” test to prove that if it was not for Bailey’s negligence you would have not sustained the damages that were caused. When we analyze the actual cause from Bailey’s side, there is an extremely low chance of her having an argument to win because indeed her negligence caused the damages.
Damages, within a negligence case, are more than injuries and this is the last piece of negligence that we can easily win for because of how much damage has been done in order to determine any compensation. Lastly, the plaintiff must demonstrate that Carter sustained actual loss or damage resulting from the professional negligence.” (Curtis B. Wiley V. Peat Young & Company) Due to the damages that was caused by Bailey we will illustrate to Carter, that all of the economic damages that were additional to the physical damages that were done to his body. Carter still had 12 more years until you were able to retire, meaning that Carter is able to be compensated for both punitive and compensatory damages for what you are losing because of Bailey’s negligence. Bailey does not have an argument of not proving that there were no damages, because we already proved, because of the “But for” test, that there are indeed damages that occurred, as stated before both physical and economical. (THIS IS THE LEGAL ANALYSIS)
As it’s been stated before, Zoe Bailey was heading home in her car, she was driving at normal speed but while driving she was wearing a new pair of Bianca Claudio designer flip flops. as she stepped on the gas pedal, one of the flip flops slipped off her foot and became lodged under the pedal. Car started going really fast and she lost control of the vehicle. She cut the yellow lines and got into an accident with Ronald Carter. Carter will not be able to walk again.
BIanca Claudio could have warned his customers or at least had a label on for them to know and not use them while driving but there were no warnings at all for his customers.
The Stakeholders of this case are Zoe Bailey, Bianca Claudio and Ronald Carter and other people who were outside and other drivers as well. Claudio had two options: either sell the product and let the customers know that it can be really dangerous to drive while having his product on or sell the product without letting them know what can happen if they drive while using his product. Under the Stakeholder theory which is the greatest good to greatest number of people, Zoe could have been aware and not use those sandals while driving and not put his or someone’s else life at risk, Claudio could have been protected from upcoming issues like this no one will not blame him for not warning, and at the end all the other people outside and other drivers included Ronald Carter could safely get home and not be part of the accident. Under Rights theory which is protecting individual rights it was Zoe Bailey’s right to know what can cause flip flops if she will use them while driving.
The second choice under the Categorical imperative which is what if everyone took such an action, l many people will use flip flops while driving and cause so many accidents and injuries to others and to themselves. Also under the justice theory which can harm to the individual be justified, this will not be ethical just because it can’t be justified, and the provider of these flip flops could have saved many lives with just one warning.
He chose not to send any warning to his customers and his choice was not ethical because that big accident occured and MR. Carter will not be able to walk anymore and Zoe is the one who causes him that. Option one is more effective in this case as MR. Claudio could have success in his business if he will send a warning to his customers about what can happen if they will use his product. At the same time Zoe and Claudio will not have an accident. (THIS IS THE ETHICAL ANALYSIS)
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.