ASSIGNMENT # 6

1.     What is the difference between criminal law and tort law?

Criminal Law: Is when the prosecutor is the government. The legal system enforces payment to the government or jail time.

Tort Law: Is when the plaintiff/ person who suffered damages by others, suits another for damages to person/property and demands payment for damages.

2.     What are the conditions for strict liability and negligence?

For strict liability to be met, a risk of serious harm must be present in an action even if reasonable care is used to avoid said harm. For example, men working with explosive items; there is still a risk for harm even if the explosives are handled properly (accidental discharge, etc.). Though if the harm is caused without taking reasonable care to avoid it, there is no strict liability. For example, carelessly tossing around active, timed explosives.

For negligence, there must be a breach of a duty of care occurring with a factual and proximate cause and creates damages. For example, doctors knowingly not informing Patient A of contracting disease X. Due to this, disease X went untreated and developed into a life threatening problem causing emotional and physical distress. The doctors were negligent due to not informing and treating disease X in Patient A.

3.     What does it mean that an event A caused another event B? Give an example.

Is when an action is taken, with means or no means of causing harm to others. The final outcome is when B does something to add into A’s actions.  For example: Person A is walks a busy intersection and person B is driving to school.  A decides to cross an intersection, looks both ways and sees a car about a block and half away from him.  He decides to cross the street even if the pedestrian light says to hold, he believes he has enough time to cross.  B, the driver, is texting and driving and does not notice the pedestrian crossing and the lights changing. A should have waited for the light to change and allow for all vehicles to come to a complete stop before crossing.  But B shouldn’t have been texting and driving, risking motorists and pedestrian lives.

4.     What is legal causation? Give an example.

Before legal causation is established, factual causation must be established. Legal causation is the determination of laws that can be applied to the situation established in factual causation. For example, A steamed a carrot in front of B causing B to question their purpose in life. Since there is no law against burning carrots or causing people to question themselves, no laws can be applied nor can legal causation. If the laws prohibiting either action, then legal causation can be established. 

5.     What were the reasons for the court's decision in Lynch vs. Fisher? Do you agree - why or why not?

Though it was the negligence of the employee of Fisher and Wheless, Adkins, that caused the unfortunate series of events, they are still liable for the damage (as well as their insurance company) caused by the events since Adkins was acting as an agent of the duo. The court ruled that Adkins and his companion were responsible for making sure that their vehicle could be identified as out of service by approaching drivers. Since they didn’t take the steps to do so, they were negligent. I do agree with this ruling.  As stated, this could have been done by lighting flares on road surrounding their vehicle or placing some reflective markers indicating so. In failing to do so, it set off the chain of events that led to Grunter shooting Lynch and subsequent damage. Had they done so, these events would have not occurred in the manner they did. Their negligence sparked the chain of unfortunate events.

6.     What were the reasons for the court's decision in Palsgraff vs. LIRR? Do you agree - why or why not?

The court of appeals dismissed Palsgraff’s appeal. It was determined that there was no proximate cause by the LIRR (acting through their two agents, the guards) in the plaintiff’s injury. The guards could have not possibly known that pushing the passenger and his hidden package towards the car would have led to her suffering emotional trauma. There is very little sufficient relation between the guard’s actions and the plaintiff’s injury. I agree with the courts ruling. There was no possible way that the two guards could have known that the passenger was concealing fireworks within his newspaper at the time the events occurred. If they had known, they would have not acted in the manner they did. Therefore, the LIRR can’t be held liable for the sequence of events that was caused from the discharge of the fireworks and the plaintiff’s injury.