Lucy and Pan were walking in their neighborhood with their three-year-old son, S

Question

Lucy and Pan were walking in their neighborhood with their three-year-old son, Stan. It was snowing pretty heavily that day. At the corner next to a busy intersection, they met their friend Joe. While Lois and Peter were engaged in conversation with Joe, they failed to notice Stewie wandering into the street. A large eighteen-wheeler, owned by PDot Industries, was traveling through the intersection at the legal speed limit. Quagmire, the driver, spotted Stewie in the middle of the road and very quickly applied his brakes, stopping inches short of little Stewie. However, because the brakes were applied so quickly, the truck’s trailer unit swerved into the other lane, striking a car driven by Clark and severely injuring him. An anti-swerve device was available that, had it been installed on the truck, would have prevented the trailer from swinging into the other lane. The device could be installed easily and cheaply, but most commercial truck operators in the state had not installed the device on their trucks. Clark sues Lucy and Pan for negligence. Clark also sues PDot Industries, both for the negligence of their driver and for not installing the anti-swerve device. Assuming the facts above are the only facts you have available, discuss whether Pan/Lucy and/or PDot Industries are liable for Clark's injuries from alleged negligence and strict liability.

Explanation / Answer

Yes,Pan/lucy and/or PDot industriesare liable for clerk's injuries from alleged negligence and strict liability.

Negligence is a faliure to exercise care that a reasonable prudent should exercise in like circumstances.Strict liability is the imposition of liability without a findind of fault.The claimant only need to prove that the tort occured and the defendant was responsible.

In this case Pan and Lucy acted neglegently in taking care of their child,and that neglegent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff,and the plaintiff was injured.

PDot industries is liable for clerks injuries because the industry acted neglegently in maintaining the safety of its truck.The company should have installed the anti-swerve device that was available to prevent the trailor from swinging into the other lane.The swinging was the act for which Clark was injured severely.

But the PDot industry is not liable for the neglence of its driver because the driver acted reasonably and applied the break in order to save little stan.Also the driver was driving at a legal speed limit.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse L
• Subjects

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