Answer Happy

On October 12, 2007, an accident occurred in Portland involving a cement truck and a bicyclist. The bicyclist, Tracey Sparling, was a 19-year-old art student. She was killed in the accident. Here is a link to a blog entry and Oregonian articles about the accident that killed Ms. Sparling: http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianextra/2007/10/from the oregonian of friday.html#1012. You can (and probably should) find other reports about this incident online. Do NOT confuse this case with a case that occurred around the same time involving a garbage truck! Further, you are to assume as true the following: The truck driver passed the bicyclist a block or two before the intersection, where he knew he intended to turn right. He had his right turn signal on. The bicyclist rode up beside him, seeing his right turn signal in the process. Both stopped at the light, and both started to move when the light turned green. Upload your completed assignment in .doc, .docx, or .rtf format (NOT .wps or .pdf or .zip or any other format) via the D2L Assignments page from which you downloaded the assignment. You should review the materials posted on the Content page about "How to analyze tort cases" and "Elements vs. Allegations" before commencing work on this assignment. You also need to review the course Assignment Rubrics, which can be found in the "Introduction to this course" module. Don't forget to be systematic in your answers, and don't forget to number your answers!
3. If you were the attorney for the bicyclist's estate, what claims of negligence might you bring against the driver? Where might you look to find duties breached by the driver? (Hint: try the Oregon Motor Vehicle Code.) List at least one allegation of negligence that you might bring against the driver. (One or two sentences should be plenty to do this.) 4. Based on what you find in the articles and online, can you think of any negligence claims you might bring against the owner or the manufacturer of the cement truck? What do you think either or both of them did that they should not have done, or did not do that they should have done, that caused this accident in light of known risks? List two such allegations of negligence that you think might apply. Be specific! (Note: the doctrine of respondeat superior [or vicarious liability] means that an employer is responsible for the negligence of an employee acting within the course and scope of the employment; it does NOT involve negligence on the part of the employer. In addition, we have no evidence in this case of any negligence on the part of the employer in hiring or training the driver. In other words, you can't use respondeat superior or inadequate hiring or training as allegations of negligence here!) This can be done in a few sentences.