Sarah Hall Negligence Case

The Rule of Law:

The court should provide a ruling based on the facts presented from both sides which correspond to the defined and existing the rule of law. The law of tort will have to be induced as the defendant has to respond to the allegations of negligence. In correspondence to the case of negligence, if the negligence is ascertained as claimed by Sarah Hall, her evidence should be determined at all exceeds the required facts for the admissibility.

The act is necessary because the circumstantial evidence approach has been considered and that there is the dependency on hearsay hence requiring the determination of evidentiary rule. Also, the court should uphold to facts that the evidence provided by the plaintiff, Sarah Hall should exceed

However, it is the fact that all the deceased pilots had their seats in one cockpit of one airplane that allowed dual control of the flight from either side of the pilot chamber complicates the matter even more.

Despite the plaintiff's evidence suffering from “insufficiency syndrome,” it is very difficult to justify a negligence case without tangible support that truly confirms the role of the defendant in the alleged case within the court chambers. Ruling in favour of the plaintiff, Sarah Hall, would have resulted in a lot of complains from the defendant's sympathizers while contrarily dismissing Sarah's claim might have negative repercussions in such a way that public will lose trust in the credibility of the court even in what the public perceive as straightforward legal complexities.

According to Graham (2016), the court in this particular case was not provided with enough substantial evidence to rule on the favor of the plaintiff since the legal provisions states that mere presumptions cannot judge negligence, but from clear, concrete evidence tabled before the court magistrate or judge. The provisions of the Federal Evidentiary rules as explained by Kansas Legislation (2018) also demand a reliable witness from the scene of the accident. This was not possible for Sarah to provide such a witness since the only people who were on board at the time of the plane accident were none

This is due to the fact that plaintiff only relied on the probability factors as the she claimed that Jack Kimbrough must have owed Marvin a duty of care since it was the former’s biennial flight. Besides, the Kansas legislation requires tangible evidence that must comprise presence of at least an eye witness who was at the scene of incidence before making a rule on negligence in the favour of the plaintiff. It is also important to note that both federal and Kansas legislations have to be revised as far as the provisions on the negligence cases are concerned. Therefore, as there was no enough evidence for both plaintiff and the court to prove who the real ‘Pilot in Command’ was, Sarah Hall should be paid the alleged $50000 for