Ralph Rider Case Summary

According to the facts of the case, the judgment of the trial court will be upheld on appeal for the following reasons, Ralph Rider and Tortville Tavern is guilty of negligence per se, Frank Follower is the approximate cause of Ralph Rider’s injuries and all three parties are liable for damages to Ralph Rider. Possible arguments raised on appeal could be contributory negligence and assumption of risk by Ralph Rider.

Frank Follower was a proximate cause of Ralph Rider’s injuries. Frank Follower’s action of drinking and driving with Ralph Rider as a passenger was the main cause for Rider’s injuries. Frank Follower had a duty to not drive while under the influence and he breached that duty. Ralph Rider would not have been injured but for

Comparative negligence apportions the damages based off of how much each party is at fault. This state appears to apply pure form rule, which means the plaintiff, and defendants are only responsible for their own amount of negligence. The court gave each party a one-third of responsibility for their individual roles in the accident.

The two parties could rise that Riders’ negligence was the only proximate cause for his injuries. However the actions of all defendants played a role in injuring Rider, not just his actions alone. Tortville Tavern could argue that they were not aware of the fact that Follower was already visibly intoxicated before severing him, however they have a duty as previously mentioned to protect their patrons. They also have a duty to be aware if a patron is intoxicated before continuing to serve them. The last argument that could be raised is that Rider assumed the risk of a car accident when he hitched a ride with Follower when he appeared to be visibly intoxicated. An argument could state that there was implied assumption of risk in Rider’s actions and he should not be allowed to recover. On the contrary, Rider saw Follower’s offer for a ride as a better choice then standing in the rain, so he chose to ride with Follower and is only partially responsible for his injuries. In conclusion the decision made by the trial court should be