Sasha: The Case of the Drunk Driver, (focus: reasonable person) Sasha is bartend

Question

Sasha: The Case of the Drunk Driver, (focus: reasonable person) Sasha is bartending at The Right Round, a nearby pub, because her new song isn’t selling very well. She sees Joe-Lo, a regular customer at The Right Round, is clearly intoxicated. He asks her for one more round of drinks before he leaves. Not wanting to offend him in case he wants to collaborate with her on his next album, Sasha serves him, saying, “Let’s make this the last round.” Twenty minutes later, Joe-Lo leaves the bar to go home. Just after Joe-Lo pulls his car onto the highway, he swerves and hits another car head-on. Joe-Lo and the driver of the other car are seriously injured. State the duty Look for the breach Did defendant’s conduct cause the plaintiff’s harm? What damages does defendant owe the plaintiff? What do you think? Is Sasha responsible for the accident? Should Joe-Lo be able to sue her and collect damages? Should the other driver?

Explanation / Answer

The difendant is clearly gulity of causing the accident. He is drun and drove and caused the accident.

A legal duty was owed, In the case of car accidents, the duty is the one that all drivers owe to other drivers on the road. If you get behind the wheel of a car, you owe a legal duty to everyone else on the road -- drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists -- to operate your vehicle with a reasonable standard of care.

A duty was breached -This means that the plaintiff has to prove the defendant was negligent in fulfilling the duty of care. Since the duty is to behave as a reasonably prudent driver would, the "reasonable person" standard is used as a measure of whether a breach exists in car accidents. This means the behavior of the driver who is supposedly at fault is compared to what a reasonable driver would have done. If a reasonable driver would have been more careful, then the driver in question can be considered negligent and thus can be considered to be (at least partially) at fault. Proof that a driver was cited for a traffic violation in connection with the accident will go a long way toward establishing that a duty was breached.

The breach of duty led to injuries -It isn't enough for the other driver to have been negligent; that alone won't make him responsible for an accident and injuries. The driver's negligence had to have actually been the direct or proximate cause of the accident, which means that the accident would not have happened if the other driver had been more careful.

Sasha is responsible for the accident indirectly, as she has violated her ethics of not serving the customer after he is drunk fully. She behaved selfishly and in other way we can say she ensured the customer loyalty is not lost.

Joe Lo can sue Sasha once he proves that she is gulity.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

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