Negligence
Student Name
Institution Affiliation
QUESTION ONE
As human beings, we carry out our day to day activities in a much better way compared
to other species. During the different processes of carrying out these various activities, we put ourselves to different types of risks that can hurt us. Therefore, human beings are in a much better position in experiencing multiple injuries when handling their activities. There are some scenarios where a person might be injured, but the event does not fully match the reason for the damage. In law, a proximate cause is an event that is significantly related to the injury (Garber, 2018). These different events have then been deemed to be the causes of these injuries. Therefore, this discussion paper looks into the proximate course and some of the effective defenses accompanied by these different courses.
Having seen the definition of proximate course as various or a particular event that is sufficiently related to be ideally the leading cause of injury, proper establishment of the accident’s proximate cause is critical. Adequate identification of the proximate cause is, therefore, very much essential. Upon the occurrence of any personal injury, it is deemed vital to the victim or the injured to establish the injury’s proximate cause. However, the proximate cause of the injury or accident may not be entirely the same thing as the cause-in-fact or immediate cause. The closely related cause of the damage does not insinuate that the questionable act must be the very closest when the injury was taking place (Yablon, 2019). However, this dubious act must be the primary or predominant cause of experienced injury. For the courts to prove the liability of the defender to the plaintiff’s injury, there must exist proof that a defendant’s actions are the reason for the damages, with various types of stories setting long sequences of unseen consequences, through proximate cause the much-enjoyed limits of the defender’s liabilities in its scope.
Proximate cause has been seen to have several defenses. To successfully defend a filed proximity cause complaint, a defendant should attempt to negate various objects in the plaintiff’s course of action. Therefore, he or she goes ahead and produces an exclusive introduction of the evidence that she or he was never in a position to hold the duty to a plaintiff that resulted in no damages to the said plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant might cling to various norms to efficiently single out and prevent various negligence liabilities. The following are the defenses in a proximity clause.
Contributory negligence is seen to be one of the most common defenses of proximity cause. Contributory negligence shows, therefore, on the plaintiff’s part. Contributory negligence is mostly seen when a plaintiff’s conduct reduces to a specific expected position that would be then necessary for the said plaintiff’s protection (Collins, 2017). Therefore, the declared type of behavior is seen to get along with the defendant’s negligence that, in return, resulted in harming the plaintiff. Therefore, this means that the plaintiff was in a better position to avoid the said injuries if he was not negligent. John is an industrial employee; he suffers from severe burns brought by malfunctioning of his welding torch. These burns, however, resulted from John forgetting to put on his protective face mask before starting his scorching duties. Proper use of the torch that would cover his face would have prevented the burns. It is therefore seen that John’s negligence of not putting on his torch brought him serious injuries; had he been more keen and careful, he would have avoided these burns. Like North Carolina, different states in the United States of America apply the doctrine of pure negligence. Therefore, the principle states that other victims who only have a percentage of one to his fault may not be compensated in a lawsuit. An exception to contributory negligence, however, can happen. The exception is referred to as the clear last chance and occurs in situations where the defendant was to avoid injuries through ordinary care.
When a pedestrian crosses a road where there is no pedestrian crossing sign, a particular motorist who consequently has a rite of passage goes ahead and injures the pedestrian; he or she can still be found liable since she could have avoided striking the pedestrian. The motorist, therefore, would be the proximate cause of injury to the pedestrian.
Comparative negligence is also a defense to proximity cause and has led to very harsh results in different scenarios. Comparative negligence is divided into three other areas. These areas include pure failure, where a percentage of damages is awarded to the plaintiff responsible by the defendant (Gordon, 2020). Modifies negligence is a case where the plaintiff is only awarded damages for their negligence if the said negligence is less or equal than the defender’s failure. Sight gross also happens when the plaintiff is only awarded damages if their said negligence is regarded as small or thin, with the defendant’s negligence being more. A drunk individual who hits and critically injures a said pedestrian who also seen to have failed to use a crosswalk would have his or her liability reduced due to the pedestrian’s negligence, although being very unlikely that the individual could have behaved very differently if the pedestrian followed traffic rules and followed the crosswalk. The driver would, therefore, be the proximate cause of injury to the pedestrian.
One of the other defenses of risk includes the assumption of risk. A plaintiff who goes ahead o assume various risks involved in any dangerous activity might find it hard to recover from the injuries and damages. Therefore, the said doctrine has to be applied; actual subjective knowledge of the issues is to be known by the plaintiff. Voluntary acceptance of the risk involved in the said act is also crucial. For example, there is a ride in an amusement park that flips passengers or the park’s clients upside down. One individual assumed the risk regarding the ride.
On the contrary, a plaintiff does not take the risk of any acts unexpected regarding the ride. A loose bolt might result in throwing away the plaintiff in a very violent manner. The owner of the ride, therefore, would be the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff.
QUESTION TWO
A government agency responsible for a playground and its equipment and the road conditions would have various duties to the relevant individuals associated with the garden’s business. With the said playground having various swings and toy sports cars set to amuse different clients, improper service would be seen as negligence and affect the park’s operations. Therefore, the government agency has to ensure various factors are considered and measures to enhance safety to these clients. The government agency is the management of the park is mandated to provide the amusement swing hinges are adequately oiled and greased to reduce friction that would hence reduce tear and wear of the swing hinges. Proper tightening of the various bold are also vital and would help enhance the safety of those riding in these swings. The said sports toy cars should be well serviced and ensured that they are properly maintained to reduce accidents. Roads in the park also have to be swept clean to avoid harmful objects like sticks, nails, and sharp objects from harming their clients. On the outside of the park, nearly close to the fence, hawkers sell goods to people passing by. The government agency is tasked to ensure proper fencing of the garden with appropriate materials that will not hurt these individuals. The park has been adequately maintained in recent times, and currently, there is no breach of duties in the governmental amusement park. Failure to hold to the end of the bargain to maintain proper set regulations would result in proximate causes.
The different animals in the park-like horses would endanger the visitors; monkeys have seen snatch away foodstuffs from people, among other factors.
QUESTION THREE
Therefore, as a judge, if this case were brought forward to me, I would have asked about the various roles, duties, and responsibilities of each conflicting party according to the law. With that, a proper understanding of the subject matter would help me rule diligently, freely, and legally without taking sides of any of the conflicting parties. The government agency is, therefore, in my opinion, entitled to any damages that will occur on the park’s premises. They ought to ensure different safety measures are put in place. These various set measures, rules, and regulations would provide stern actions to those who will be found not heeding to these commands (Knobe, Shapiro, 2020). Through the set rules and regulations, alongside proper maintenance, there would be fewer injuries.
References
Garber, T. M. H. M. E. (2018). NEGLIGENCE and PROXIMATE CAUSE. Dickinson Law Review, 26(4).
Collins, D. (2017). IUD blamed for multiple miscarriages; was caregiver negligence the proximate cause of the deaths? Contemporary OB/GYN, 62(5), 53-56.
Gordon, W. J. (2020). Fair Use in Oracle: Proximate Cause at the Copyright/Patent Divide. BUL, Rev., 100, 389.
Knobe, J., & Shapiro, S. J. (2020). Proximate Cause Explained: An Essay in Experimental Jurisprudence. University of Chicago Law Review, forthcoming.
Yablon, D. (2019). Proximate Cause in Statutory Standing and the Genesis of Federal Common Law. Calif. L. Rev., 107, 1609.