In a hilly area of San Francisco, there is a shopping center containing a superm
ID: 376709 • Letter: I
Question
In a hilly area of San Francisco, there is a shopping center containing a supermarket. A shopper takes his groceries out to the parking lot in a supermarket cart. He lets go of the cart to open the trunk of his car to load the groceries. The cart starts to roll away, but is stopped within a few feet by a steel post. When the cart hits the post, there is a loud ring. This startles a four year old girl whose mother was taking her to have her hair cut. The girl jumps into the path of the door of a car which is being opened by a woman getting out of the car. The girl is knocked down by the door and falls, breaking her arm. If the girl (or her mother) sues on the tort theory of negligence, should she win? If so, who would be liable? Why or why not would that person(s) be liable? (Analyze the situation using the elements of negligence.)Explanation / Answer
The girl would win the case if she files suit based on the tort theory of negligence. Negligence is an unintentional tort due to which one party gets injured because of the actions of another. In order to prove the negligence and liability the five elements of negligence are considered. Here the parties who can be liable for the injuries include the shopper and the woman who opened the car door. The five elements of negligence include duty, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause and damages.
Both the man who stopped the car in the hill area and the woman who opened the door without care have the duty to ensure that their acts do not make any harm to the public. The breach of duty is done by both the parties; the shopper by being careless in handling the car knowing that it is a hill area and car may scroll down and the woman who was careless while opening the door and hit the girl who jumped near the car. Both the party actions contain cause in fact as the shopper’s action made the car to hit the steel post which made a loud ring which made the girl to jump and cause the accident and the woman’s carelessness while opening the door without analyzing the situation caused the accident. Proximate cause requires the defendant to be responsible for the harms that the defendant could have foreseen. If the damages are out of scope of the risks that the defendant could have foreseen, he is not liable for negligence. Here the woman who opened the car door can foresee the harms if she do not open the door carefully. There are many pedestrians and the probability of hitting is more. But the shopper cannot foresee that his car may hit the steel post and the sound from steel post may lead to accident of a girl. Hence the shopper cannot be held liable and the woman is liable for the negligence. The girl can claim the fifth element, damages by showing the physical injury caused by the woman’s negligence.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.