Your Honor, the issue in today’s case is whether Alex Cooper is responsible for her own injuries. The plaintiff has the burden of proof, and must prove negligence by the greater weight of credible evidence. The defense’s expert has concluded that Cooper breached her duties of pedestrian lookout and visibility, and is therefore more negligent, and responsible for her own damages. At dusk, on the clear evening of Friday, October 5th, 2012, defendant Taylor Hamilton, age 16, was driving his mother’s Lincoln Town Car eastbound on Nash Street in Clearwater when he struck and injured 16-year-old plaintiff Alex Cooper. As Hamilton said in his trial, it was a driver’s worst nightmare. At about 6:45 pm, as Hamilton was approaching the crest of the …show more content…
hill on Nash Street, Cooper ran out from the woods on Hamilton’s left, into the westbound lane, just beyond the hill’s crest. Cooper was wearing a dark maroon sweatshirt, with her hood up, and was hard to see because of the light and shadows and her position in the woods. The defense’s expert witness, Kirby Latanatto, independently reached the professional conclusion that Hamilton would not have been able to avoid hitting Cooper because of her crossing location and her minimal visibility to drivers. As Latanatto stated in her testimony today, Hamilton’s headlights wouldn’t have illuminated Cooper because of the parties’ relative positions on the Nash Street hill, how visible Cooper was, and Cooper’s speed. Latanatto, a certified accident reconstructionist, recognized that Hamilton was speeding, but said that from his experience as a Clearwater patrol officer, driving just two miles over the speed limit in good weather conditions wouldn’t normally be ticketed. Jerry Houseman, who observed the incident from his garage, testified that “[Cooper] didn’t even seem to look both ways” and that “she seemed to dash right out in front of the car.” Hamilton’s testimony echoed this observation -- he stated that he couldn’t see Cooper until it was too late. The plaintiff’s witnesses seemed to have conflicting information in today’s testimonies. Blake Green admitted to lying under oath, as her deposition and affidavit are contradictory: she stated in her deposition that she sent the text to Avery for Hamilton, and then stated in her affidavit that Hamilton himself sent that last text to Avery. The plaintiff’s expert witness, Ryan Crawley, based his calculations for possible outcomes on measurements and standard headlight alignments for a flat road while the location in question involved a hill, with the two parties on opposite sides of the crest at the appropriate perception time. Crawley’s conclusion that Hamilton should have been able to avoid hitting Cooper is then thrown into question, since the basis for her analysis didn’t fit the actual scene of the crash. Of all the evidence presented today, there are three main reasons why Alex Cooper was the more negligent party.
First, Cooper crossed at an area of the road where there was no crosswalk. This is a breach of a pedestrian’s duty of lookout; Wisconsin Statute 1095 states that at an area with no crosswalk, the pedestrian yields to vehicles. In this case, Cooper should have been sure to look both ways, and upon seeing Hamilton’s approaching car waited for the traffic to pass before crossing the street. Second, Cooper also breached her duty of her pedestrian visibility by wearing dark colors in a woodsy, unlit area. Wisconsin Statute 1036 states that a driver is not negligent if they were unable to see an object because of its color, position, and/or shadow. Lastly, Cooper’s position on the Nash Street hill made it impossible for Hamilton to avoid hitting her. Cooper crossed just beyond the crest of the hill, which means Hamilton wouldn’t have been able to see her as he was driving up the hill -- he wouldn’t have been able to see her until he had reached the crest of the hill and had begun to drive down. Further complicating Hamilton’s ability to see Cooper was the fact that she ran out from the woods. This means that by the time Hamilton was about to crest the hill, Cooper was only just running out from the woods. This sequence of events created a situation that was impossible to
avoid. Because Alex Cooper breached both her duty of pedestrian lookout and of pedestrian visibility, and because of her crossing location on Nash Street’s hill, Miss Cooper is, quite sadly, more negligent, and therefore responsible for her own injuries. The defense thanks Your Honor for your careful consideration of the evidence presented to you today.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury. I am here to represent Justin Garcia, to prove the negligence of Jessica Nordeen. The law of negligence says that negligence occurs if an individual does something harmful that a person of ordinary intelligence would not do. In the next few moments,I will prove to the Jury that there was a breach of duty in the case of Garcia v. Nordeen.
Actus Reus: It was never unclear if the accused was responsible for the act occurring. There were several eye witness testimonies placing her as the offender which was backed up by CCTV footage from a camera in the lane. Furthermore, at the beginning of the trial the offender pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of constructive manslaughter and that it was caused by reckless driving on her behalf. By claiming manslaughter the offender immediately takes full responsibility for the act regardless of what charge they are handed.
Ashley Smith was a young girl that was placed in a juvenile detention centre at age 15 for throwing apples at a mail man. Her short sentence quickly extended into a life sentence because of so many infractions within the prison system. Ashley suffered from extreme mental health issues and was place in a psychiatric prison facility, however this facility was shown in the documentary to be corrupt and their actions with Ashley were extremely illegal. Furthermore, Ashley wasn’t given the proper help and treatment that she needed, instead she was physically and verbally abused by guards in the prison, and she ultimately passed away in the prison. Her death is still being debated about whether
Although she was undeniably injured and her suffering is provable, she cannot establish that she was injured directly by Bob Barton¡¦s actions. The relevant case law for this situation comes from several cases from Kentucky: 761 S.W.2d 625, 597 S.W.2d 141, 147 S.W. 742, 112 S.W. 600, and 77 S.W. 361 among others. These cases establish the law as defined by the courts that without physical contact a claim for negligence cannot be reputable.
“A friend of mine, Barbara Silva, a nurse at Waltham school was driving to work on Route 128 when another car suddenly cut her off. For some reason the truck ahead of [that car] braked abruptly and [the car] banged into it. She slammed into [the car]. It was a horrible accident. It could have been avoided if [the other car] hadn’t jumped lanes.
David Milgaard’s story is one of the most striking and well know representation of wrongful conviction as it happened right here in Saskatoon. Even further than that his case has been called “one of the most famous examples of wrongful conviction in Canada” (CBC News, 2011). In January of 1970, 17-year-old ...
During a high speed pursuit at speeds of over 100 mph involving an officer and the driver of the sports car the officer lost control and hit and killed a pedestrian on the sidewalk. When this occurred the sports cars driver turned to look back, crashed the sports car and was killed.
"Know the Cases." Innocence Project. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, n.d. Web. 1 Mar 2011. .
The theories in which I base my decision on are res ipsa loquitor and negligence per se. Res ipsa loquitor means that “it creates a presumption that the defendant was negligent because he or she was in exclusive control of the situation and that the plaintiff would not have suffered an Injury”. Negligence per se means “an act of the defendant that violates a statute regulation or ordinance can be used to establish a breach of the duty of due care” (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 163). Therefore, the injuries of the Prius driver and the people at the train station, I believe that George is at fault of negligence, because of negligence, carelessness and is foreseeable. Now as for the sparks from the wiring caught that lead to the other chain of events. I feel that George should not be held accountable for negligence, because it was unforeseeable. He could not prevent that it can cause a barn to explode and setting forth a series of
“Murder on a Sunday morning” is a documentary based on the African American teenager named Brenton Butler, who was convicted of shooting an elderly white woman. As the police found Brenton 90 minutes later, he was brought straight to the victim’s husband who was the only witness during the shooting, and said yes that him, leading to the wrongful conviction of Brenton Butler. There are many factors that led to the wrongful conviction of Brenton Butler, faulty eyewitness identification, weapon focus, and own-bias during the police procedure.
“In the front seat was Gregg, driving, Sarah, in the middle, and Robyn, on the passenger side. In the rear seat was Jeff, behind the driver, Haley, in the middle, and Rachel, on the passenger side. EVERYONE was wearing their SEAT BELTS, as is our family habit. EVERYONE walked away from this accident with only bruises. The only blood was Robyn had small nicks from glass in a couple of places on her right arm and right leg.