Defendant Chris Williams (herein “Williams”) respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. As set forth in detail below, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and Summary Judgment in favor of Chris Williams should be granted. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS Plaintiff, Sandra Johnson, seeks damages for negligence against Chris Williams as a result of a car accident. On November 01, 2013, Defendant, Chris Williams was in a car accident at the intersection of Elm and Maple Street traveling at approximately 5:45pm- 6:00pm. when Mrs. Johnson’s vehicle struck his car. (Williams Dep. Pg. 2). Mrs. Johnson was alone in her car, a white Toyota Corolla, going north on Elm. At the intersection, …show more content…
Carr v. Lee, 249 N.C. 712, 714 (1959). Similarly, Chris Williams was traveling from eastbound to the westbound side of the intersection. Like Carr, Williams had the right of way as he was to the right of Mrs. Johnson. Although there were no traffic signs, the eastbound motorist, Mr. Williams, arrived in intersection and thus had the right of way having no duty to Mrs. Johnson. In order to find one guilty of negligence all for elements of negligence must be proven. Here, Mr. Williams had no duty meaning that he could not have breached a duty that does not exist and he was not the proximate cause of Mrs. Johnson’s damages. Therefore, Mr. Williams should be granted a Motion for Summary Judgment, as he was not negligent to Mrs. Williams. In order to be found negligent in North Carolina all four elements must be satisfied. Since Williams had no duty to Mrs. Johnson,, the negligence claim should
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
The respondent (driver) is required to take reasonable care when operating his vehicle to ensure the safety of the appellant. The primary judge highlighted that "content of this duty depends on the circumstances of the case". However, the respondent breached his duty of care by taking his eyes off the road, violating s 5B and s 5C of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002. The respondent nevertheless is not considered negligent as outlined in s5B (1) if he could prevent the outcome of a risk that was not
Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury. I am here to represent Justin Garcia, to prove the negligence of Jessica Nordeen. The law of negligence says that negligence occurs if an individual does something harmful that a person of ordinary intelligence would not do. In the next few moments,I will prove to the Jury that there was a breach of duty in the case of Garcia v. Nordeen.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
Now that there was a duty of care owed we have to prove whether the defendant breached their duty. The defendant will be compared to a reasonable man who is expected to drive reasonable competently well. The defendant is expected to meet the same standard of care as a reasonable driver. A reasonable driver in the defendant’s positon would not have been driving over the speed limit in the area and also would not have been on their phone as some eye witnesses pointed out. Individual characteristics of the defendant don’t be considered. However, as the defendant was a learner who had just passed his test but it does not make a difference whether the defendant was a learner o...
Mr. A. sustained multiple fractures to his fingers when an automobile illegally turned left in front of him. The insurance company contested Mr. A’s residency under one of the underinsured policies and the extent of his injuries. However, we were able to secure a settlement in his favor.
The manager at that McDonald’s restaurant, the defendant, knew Matt had to drive a long way to and from work. Even though this information was known, the manager gave an opportunity to Matt to work a cleaning shift between his regular shifts. My thoughts are that the manager should not have given the opportunity to Matt on the first place as the manager knew Matt was already working from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm on April 4th, 1988 and 5:00 am to 8:21 am on April 5th, 1988 and had to drive 20 minutes to and from work. Adding a cleanup shift from 12:00 am to 5:00 am on April 5th, 1988 made Matt’s working hours excessively long. By the end of his shift, it is obvious that Matt is over worked and not in a condition to drive back. This lack of judgement from the manager eventually lead to the accident and death of Matt, and massive injury to Frederick M. Faverty, the plaintiff. Due to this lack of judgement, I think the verdict against McDonald’s to pay $400,000.00 to the plaintiff is
Basketball season is upon us and No. 11 West Virginia tips off the season at Ramstein Air Base in Ramstein-Meisenbach, Germany against the 25th-ranked Texas A&M Aggies.
There are several issues which arise from this case of the Hill Top Café which owned by Anneke. For the first circumstance, a general issue which concerning the tort of negligence is considered. The problem is that has Anneke been negligence. Then, in the subsequent situation, it includes the general issues about vicarious liability and negligence, and the particular issue of claims for physical injuries. Therefore, does Anneke have a vicarious liability should be concerned and has Ivan been negligence for the lamp post and Steve’s motorbike. Meanwhile, who has the responsibility to compensate the injury of Steve?
The county court judge found in favour of the plaintiff and Williams was awarded £3,500, but the defendants appealed on the basis that by completing the agreed work on time, Williams had done no more than he was already contractually bound to do under the existing contract. The
As a result, Ocean Beach Company is liable for Compensatory Damages to be paid out to Derrick for medical expenses, pain, and
Negligence is said to be a failure of a responsible person who is in charge to guarantee the responsibility of care is carried out which can be resulted is another person’s injuries or damages. The word tort simply means wrong which defines liability for cost related to injuries or damages or financial loss or property damages which can be due to the lack of carelessness of the defendant towards the plaintiff. In usual cases the defendant has to be proved that he/she has acted intentionally and there should be an actual damage or injury due to their action. In order to prove that the defendant has liability towards the plaintiff, the three main elements in the “Tort of Negligence” should be presented: duty of care, breach of duty and damages that have been done.
Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use in order to avoid injury to themselves or others under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The person whose conduct we set up as a standard is not the extraordinarily cautious individual, nor the exceptionally skillful one, but a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence.One test that is helpful in determining whether or not a person was negligent is to ask and answer the question whether or not, if a person of ordinary prudence had been in the same situation and possessed of the same knowledge, he or she would have foreseen or anticipated that someone might have been injured by or as a result of his or her action or inaction. If the answer to that question is "yes", and if the action or inaction reasonably could have been avoided, then not to avoid it would be negligence.
...f way. The evidence established that the first plaintiff could not avoid the collision when the defendant swerved to his right across the road, in the path of the motorcycle driven by the first plaintiff, to enter the junction. The trial judge had misdirected himself on the facts. The trial judge had erred in adjudging that the first plaintiff was 30% liable to the second plaintiff. A pillion rider is entitled to recover the total amount of damages against a tortfeasor that. The pillion is entitled to the total amount of damages notwithstanding the finding that the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the car are equally blameworthy. In this case, the second plaintiff was an ‘innocent passenger’ and was entitled to damages on a 100% basis. He could not, as a pillion rider, be held to be vicariously liable for the contributory negligence of the first plaintiff
...ourt case was reversed and the judgment went in favor of the defendant stating that the purchaser’s breach of warranty, the cause of this action, and the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a verdict against the appellant. Judge request verdict be returned in favor of the defendant. There was no proof to show that there was any material defect or problems with the workmanship in the glass of the automobile in question and the injury the plaintiff received was not of proximal cause and makes the case invalid. There were no dissenting opinions in this case.