Argument Against Clark Kellock

1736 Words4 Pages

In the suit against Clark Kellogg by Steve Bushak’s estate, the legal arguments on Kellogg’s side regarding the claim that Clark had a duty to rescue Steve are that (1) there was an absence of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant to impose a duty of rescue and (2) the defendant would have put himself at risk of harm if he had initiated a rescue. The absence of a special relationship between Clark Kellogg and Steve Bushak is evident because the defendant did not create the hazardous situation which the plaintiff fell peril to. As the facts state, Bushak willfully “climbed on to the bench”, “jumped” over the exhibit wall and grabbed the Komodo Dragon causing his own venomous injection and consequent death. The fact of …show more content…

The existence of a special relationship between Kellogg and Bushak is evident by Kellogg’s creation of the perilous situation which the plaintiff was a victim of. Because he “would not take ‘no’ for an answer” while convincing Steve to go to the animal park and his relentless taunting with statements such as “Prove me wrong! Grab that big lizard”, Clark created an environment that provoked Steve to lift the Komodo Dragon and thus be injected with poisonous venom (Facts). If instead the facts specified that Clark physically drove Steve to the animal park, then Clark did physically force Steve into fatal danger. Unlike Steve Bushak who was “a graduate student in sociology”, Clark Kellogg was a “a medical student specializing in emergency medicine” which thus gave him special skills that granted him the capacity to perform a duty of rescue. (Facts). Kellogg would not have put himself at risk to execute this duty because the Komodo Dragon “lumbering towards the exit” away from possible contact (Facts). Also if Kellogg immediately notified medical emergency, Steve “would have survived” according to doctors

Open Document