The Effect of Defendant's Infirmities and Limitations on the Standard | Samantha Bates | April 25, 2017

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

The Effect of Defendant's Infirmities and Limitations on the Standard

Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: Samantha Bates Show/Hide
  1. 1 Show/Hide More McCarty v. Pheasant Run--"The Chained, But Unlocked, Sliding Door"
    Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: Samantha Bates
    Does a plaintiff's lack of care elevate the care expected of the defendant?
    Notes:
    Plaintiff was a guest at defendant’s hotel. Plaintiff’s room had a sliding glass door equipped with a lock and safety chain. An intruder forced his way past the chained door—which was closed but not locked—and threatened to rape the plaintiff before she fought him off. During trial, plaintiff did not prove the existence of cost-effective safety measures that the hotel could have implemented to avert the incident.
  2. 2 Show/Hide More Bashi v. Wodarz--"The Driver Who Wigged Out"
    Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: Samantha Bates
    Does mental illness count as a “sudden affliction” as defined in Roberts?
    Notes:
    Defendant was involved in two automobile accidents in fairly quick succession. The plaintiffs were involved in the second accident. The traffic report stated that defendant engaged in “bizarre” behavior before and after the collision with the plaintiffs. Defendant stated that she had little recollection of either accident. She claimed that she had no control of her actions, and believed that she had “wigged out” or “freaked out” at the time. She also claimed a family history of mental illness. Unrebutted medical expert evidence described the defendant as suffering a “[s]udden, unanticipated onset of mental illness” shortly before colliding with plaintiffs.
  3. 3 Show/Hide More Miller v. Reilly--"The Defective Brakes Case"
    Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: Samantha Bates
    Should an actor's standard of care be relaxed by exigent circumstances—such as her car's brakes failing while the actor is driving downhill?
    Notes:
    Defendant's car brakes failed while she was driving downhill. Despite her efforts to maintain control of her car, defendant's car jumped the median strip and struck the plaintiffs' automobile. Defendant's car was equipped with an emergency brake, but she failed to use it before the collision occurred.
Close

Playlist Information

April 25, 2017

Author Stats

Samantha Bates

Research Associate

Harvard Law School, Berkman Center

Other Playlists by Samantha Bates

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large