Hollis McMurtry had been looking forward to his birthday celebration all month.

Question

Hollis McMurtry had been looking forward to his birthday celebration all month. A new nightclub, TwentyfiveEleven, was scheduled to open just a day before, and his friends had planned his birthday bash there. After a long evening of partying, and after McMurtry had consumed many drinks, he slipped on the club's very slick marble flooring in the bathroom and suffered a concussion and a deep cut to the face on a sharp piece of door hardware. The wound left a large scar on his face, which his doctors told him would require extensive plastic surgery to repair. Fearing that McMurtry would sue, and that others may suffer similar injuries, the club's owners quickly replaced the bathroom flooring and removed the hardware that caused McMurtry's injury. McMurtry's attorney, Jericka Dorland, advised him that she will invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor in a lawsuit against the club. Why did Dorland choose res ipsa loquitor for this case? Is the club completely liable for McMurtry's injuries?

Explanation / Answer

The res ipsa loquitor was chosen because there is no direct evidence that behaviour of club led to accident. Instead res ipsa loquitor is implying negligence from the very nature of accident thereby effectively making club responsible for accident

No club is not completely liable for mcmurtrys injuries because he was also apparently drunk and he drank by his own choice

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse H
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.