Marcus Jacobs, the driver of a United Van Lines moving van, was going north in the passing lane on four-lane Highway 79 at 35 mph as he approached a crossing-intersection with Highway 371. C
Read this hypo for Torts and answer only IF THE ELEMENT of cause in fact was met. This is for Louisiana Civil Law Torts. Once you read the hypo, fill in the skeleton below to answer if cause in fact was satisfied. Apply any tests you may deem necessary but stick to the skeleton for the most part.
Hypo
Marcus Jacobs, the driver of a United Van Lines moving van, was going north in the passing lane on four-lane Highway 79 at 35 mph as he approached a crossing-intersection with Highway 371. City of Minden traffic signals controlled the intersection. Traffic on Highway 371 and Highway 79 was “blinking yellow” due to a rainstorm the day before that caused a short electricity outage.
Jacobs’ truck engine failed as he reached the junction and stopped before the intersection. Jacobs’ engine had stalled twice this week, but he intended to finish today’s run before sending the vehicle to the van line maintenance garage for weekend servicing. For the third time this week, the truck’s gasoline pump failed, unbeknownst to Jacobs. Hence, the engine sometimes lacked gasoline. When the moving van halted in the left passing lane, Jacobs engaged the vehicle’s emergency brake, got out, and ran two blocks down Highway 79 to the GMC truck shop for help.
Justin Roberts, test driving a 2023 Ford Mustang from Friendship Ford Dealership, entered the junction five minutes later in the parallel lane to the right of the halted moving van. Roberts stopped until he noticed the traffic signal blinking yellow. Despite the stopped van blocking his vision to the left, Roberts continued through the crossing. With tires screeching and rubber peeling, Roberts “floored” the Mustang’s accelerator and entered the junction 10 miles over the speed limit.
Roberts hit Sade Smith’s eastbound motorbike on Highway 371. Smith’s motorbike was five mph under the limit. Smith, like Roberts, entered the junction assuming the blinking warning light was in her favor. Roberts noticed Smith too late to stop. Smith was flung off her motorbike by Roberts’ automobile and suffered a fractured leg, wrist, and scratches and bruises.
Two police officers investigated within 15 minutes. “It seems to me that Mr. Roberts and Ms. Smith may have noticed each other in enough time to prevent the collision if the moving van had not impeded both Roberts’ and Smith’s views of the junction,” one police officer said after interviewing all three drivers. The city’s broken traffic signal concerns me. I’ve phoned the city’s maintenance staff eight times about this light since yesterday.” The second police officer asked Jacobs, “Sir, you do know that under the state motor vehicle code it’s illegal for anyone to leave a vehicle unattended on a public highway?” Sade Smith filed a negligence suit against United Van Lines, Marcus Jacobs, Justin Roberts, Friendship Ford, and the City of Minden for her injuries.
As a result of the injuries she received, Sade Smith has filed a negligence suit against, United Van Lines, Marcus Jacobs, Justin Roberts, Friendship Ford, and the City of Minden. Please discuss all the possible ways duty may be established or fail to be established for each listed defendant.
Skeleton
The first element the plaintiff must prove is cause in fact. This element of cause in fact addresses if the defendant caused the plaintiff’s harm or, if the defendant contributed to the harming of the plaintiff.
There are two tests used to determine cause in fact, “but for” and substantial factor.
Cause in fact is generally a “but for” inquiry. A negligent act is the “but for” cause of an injury if the injury would not have occurred but for the negligence of the plaintiff. An alternative method for determining cause in fact, that is generally used when multiple causes are present, is the “substantial factor” test. Under this test, cause in fact is found to exist when the defendant’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in bringing about plaintiff’s harm.
In this case, ______________’s conduct in doing/not doing __________________________was the cause in fact of _________________’s injury because,______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Therefore, the plaintiff will/ will not likely be able to prove the cause in fact element.
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.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
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.
