BUSINESS OF LAW- IRAC & SAMPLE CASES Please analyze the case and answer the questions: Cohen V. Petty Brief Fact Summary
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:37 am
BUSINESS OF LAW- IRAC & SAMPLE CASES
Please analyze the case and answer the questions:
Cohen V. Petty
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff was injured
while riding in a car driven by Defendant. Plaintiff sued Defendant
for negligence and claimed Defendant was speeding at the time of
the accident. Defendant proffered uncontested evidence that he lost
control of the car because he fainted immediately prior to the
accident, on the strength of which the trial court directed a
verdict for Defendant.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a Plaintiff
fails to show any actionable negligence on the part of Defendant,
and Defendant’s uncontested evidence shows the injury resulted from
a sudden, unforeseeable illness, a verdict is properly directed for
Defendant.
Facts. Plaintiff and his sister were
riding in the back of a car driven by Defendant with Defendant’s
wife in the passenger seat. Plaintiff suffered injuries when
Defendant lost control of the car and drove it off the road.
Plaintiff and his sister testified that the car was traveling at an
excessive speed, but Defendant’s uncontested evidence showed that
he fainted just before losing control of the car, that he had no
reason to expect that such a fainting spell would occur and that
this is what caused the accident.
Issue. Did the trial court properly direct
a verdict in favor of the Defendant based upon evidence of the
fainting spell?
Held. Yes. The trial court’s directed
verdict was upheld.
* A motorist suddenly stricken with the illness-causing loss of
control of an automobile resulting in injuries to another is not
guilty of negligence when he had no reason to anticipate the
illness.
Discussion. This case introduces the issue of
foreseeability into the question of fault. An essential component
of its holding is that a motorist suffering from such an attack
must have had no reason to anticipate the onset of a fainting
spell. No longer inquiring solely whether Defendant intended to
cause injury, the Court was required to consider whether Defendant
had reason to foresee causing the injury.
Question 1
The facts of the case appear to establish that Archer committed
battery against Cyril. The battery is a crime in every state in the
United States. Can Cyril bring criminal battery charges against
Archer? Why or why not? Fully explain your reasoning.
Question 2
What color was the glove that Archer was wearing on his left
hand when he hit Cyril?
Please analyze the case and answer the questions:
Cohen V. Petty
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff was injured
while riding in a car driven by Defendant. Plaintiff sued Defendant
for negligence and claimed Defendant was speeding at the time of
the accident. Defendant proffered uncontested evidence that he lost
control of the car because he fainted immediately prior to the
accident, on the strength of which the trial court directed a
verdict for Defendant.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When a Plaintiff
fails to show any actionable negligence on the part of Defendant,
and Defendant’s uncontested evidence shows the injury resulted from
a sudden, unforeseeable illness, a verdict is properly directed for
Defendant.
Facts. Plaintiff and his sister were
riding in the back of a car driven by Defendant with Defendant’s
wife in the passenger seat. Plaintiff suffered injuries when
Defendant lost control of the car and drove it off the road.
Plaintiff and his sister testified that the car was traveling at an
excessive speed, but Defendant’s uncontested evidence showed that
he fainted just before losing control of the car, that he had no
reason to expect that such a fainting spell would occur and that
this is what caused the accident.
Issue. Did the trial court properly direct
a verdict in favor of the Defendant based upon evidence of the
fainting spell?
Held. Yes. The trial court’s directed
verdict was upheld.
* A motorist suddenly stricken with the illness-causing loss of
control of an automobile resulting in injuries to another is not
guilty of negligence when he had no reason to anticipate the
illness.
Discussion. This case introduces the issue of
foreseeability into the question of fault. An essential component
of its holding is that a motorist suffering from such an attack
must have had no reason to anticipate the onset of a fainting
spell. No longer inquiring solely whether Defendant intended to
cause injury, the Court was required to consider whether Defendant
had reason to foresee causing the injury.
Question 1
The facts of the case appear to establish that Archer committed
battery against Cyril. The battery is a crime in every state in the
United States. Can Cyril bring criminal battery charges against
Archer? Why or why not? Fully explain your reasoning.
Question 2
What color was the glove that Archer was wearing on his left
hand when he hit Cyril?