Daniel owned a restored \"classic\" automobile made in 1922. To discourage tampe
ID: 419321 • Letter: D
Question
Daniel owned a restored "classic" automobile made in 1922. To discourage tampering with the car, Daniel installed an electrical device designed to give a mild shock, enough to warn but not to harm persons touching the car. Paul, a heart patient with a pacemaker, saw Daniel's car and attempted to open the door. Paul received a mild shock which would not have harmed an ordinary individual but which caused his pacemaker to malfunction, resulting in a fatal heart attack.
If Paul's estate asserts a claim against Daniel for the wrongful death of Paul, will the estate prevail?
(A) No, if Daniel was not using excessive force to protect his car.
(B) No, because Paul was a trespasser.
(C) Yes, because Daniel's act was a substantial factor in causing Paul's death.
(D) Yes, if Paul had no reason to suspect the presence of the electrical device.
Explanation / Answer
Answer: (A) No, if Daniel was not using excessive force to protect his car.
Explanation: In majority of jurisdictions, a defendant can make use of reasonable force in order to protect his or her property (real or personal) from potential threats. These threats can be of theft, destruction or damage to the defendant’s property. In this particular case, Daniel installed an electrical device designed to give a mild shock with the intention of warning the persons touching the car and not of harming them. Therefore, it can be classified as a reasonable force.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.