Ruth carelessly parks her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and fa

Question

Ruth carelessly parks her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolls down the hill and knocks down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignite a grass fire. The fire spreads until it reaches a barn one mile away. The barn houses dynamite, and the burning barn explodes, causing part of the roof to fall on and injure a passing motorist, Jim. What legal claims do you think Jim might try to bring against Ruth?Do you think that Jim can recover damages from Ruth? Why or why not? What, if any, defenses might Ruth have?

Explanation / Answer

Jim can bring suit against Ruth for her negligence in parking the car on the hill without engaging the parking brake which later resulted into injuries for Jim and Jim can seek damages for his injuries from Ruth.

I do not think that Jim can recover damages from Ruth because in order to prove negligence Jim needs to prove the necessary elements of negligence. There are five elements of negligence which are duty, breach of duty, actual cause, proximity cause and damages. Jim can prove that Ruth has the duty to park her car safely on the hill putting the parking break. Ruth has done breach of duty by leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. Her negligence actually caused Jim’s injury because when the car rolled down the hill and knocked down the electric line which in turn made spark and burned the barn one mile away which had dynamite and the explosions made the roof fall on Jim resulting into his injury. But according to proximity cause, Ruth is responsible for the harms that she could have foreseen through her actions. In this case the injury for Jim is beyond the scope as it happened through the explosion of the barn which was located one mile away from where Ruth parked. Hence Jim cannot prove that Ruth’s action had the proximity cause. It is very important to prove proximity cause in negligence suits, as the defendant can be held responsible only if the harms could have been foreseen by the defendant. Hence I do not think that Jim can recover the damages from Ruth.

Ruth has the defense of proximity cause that she could not have foreseen the harm that happened to Jim and she could not foresee any harm other than that could have happened near the hill area. The incident happened one mile away from the place and the barn containing dynamite situated one mile away is beyond her imagination.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

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