Taylor sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident because a person na

Question

Taylor sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident because a person named Carter had left her car in a parking lot and had failed to set the parking brake properly. However, Taylor had seen the unoccupied runaway car at a distance of 125 feet, but because she was talking to a passenger, she had failed to avoid the car and was hit. If Taylor sues Carter for negligence, who should prevail, and why? What legal doctrine would you use in arriving at your conclusion? What is the legal basis for Taylor’s claim? What is the legal basis for Carter’s defense? If Carter loses and appeals to the higher court, what should the higher court hold? State your legal reasoning for this conclusion. What legal concept do you base your opinion on? Explain the legal terms within this case. Taylor v. Carter, 2 N.C.App. 78, 162 S.E.2d 607 (1968).

Description
Your Assignment is to: (with your name on it),

1. Analyze each of these three cases in your mind and then state the legal issues to be considered.

2. Evaluate the legal issues in this case and determine the strengths and weaknesses of (a.) the suit by the Plaintiff against the defendant. List the strengths and weaknesses you identify.

3. Deduce logical and specific arguments based on the information you have learned in Chapters 1, 4, and 6 of your textbook and what you have learned in this course. (I am looking for verifiable deductions from the material we have covered and not just your opinion). You also must cite the source which is the basis for your deduction such as the cases or the writings that are similar which we have covered. You may also seek and cite outsource reputable sources.

4. Infer and state your logical legal conclusions based on your analysis, evaluations, and evidence you have previously stated. This legal conclusion should include (a.) who should win the law suit, and legally why and (b.) who should win the law suit.

Explanation / Answer

Case: Taylor Vs Carter

In this case injuries faced by Taylor is due to negligent car driving of Carter. Eventhough wrong intention is not there, it comes under tort of negligence. Here victim filed case for getting required damages for the accident.

Carter should prevail for her driving, because she can't able to control the car on unoccupied runway due to talking with a passenger.

Legal basis for negligence- Negligence in common law jurisdiction is generally a defence to claim based on negligence is known as tort.

In most of cases negligence often cause for occuring accidents. If plaintiff proves that it occurs due to defendant's negligence then they should file CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE doctrine and they must originate the acual situation. Sometimes liability may be divided among all responsible holders

Legal basis for Taylor's claim is determination of liability occurs due to carter failed to set the parking break properly.

Legal basis for Carter's defence is the pedestrian (Carter) crosses road negligently. It eliminates responsibility to pay damages to some extent. The last chance with a clear opportunity to take action which may prevent accident.

If carter appeals for higher court, then also she is liable to pay damages for the negligent driving.

It is concluded that burden of proof lies on Taylor, because always defendants tries to come out from tort made by them.

Legal reasoning for this conclusion is defendant (carter) tries to disprove her negligence related to driving.

The legal concept based on my opinion is according to Inaidan law Compensation in favour of the injured person gets reduced in proportion to his/her negligence. victim

Legal terms in case are:

Tort = wrongful act

Plaintiff= Person who filed a case

Defendant=On whom the case is filed

Damages= Amount paid as penalty

Burden of proof=need to prove in court of law with evidence

Victim=Responsible person for the action

Strength of Plaintiff : In this case the strength of plaintiff is Carter's negligent driving, conversing with passenger and cant able to control car break

weakness of plaintiff: As a pedestian he cant secure himself from accident

Strength of defendant: Trying to reduce damages to some extent by proving pedestian negligence also

Weekness: Neglectly driving the car

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

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