a

1149 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Applying negligence principles

McIntyre vs. Balentine:
The McIntyre vs. Balentine is one of the landmark cases in the United States because of its contribution to the adoption of a system of modified comparative fault in Tennessee. Based on this system, a plaintiff may receive compensation for damages where his/her fault is less than the defendant’s fault. Notably, the recovery of damages by the plaintiff is lessened to reflect his/her extent of fault. In situations involving several tortfeasors, a plaintiff’s recovery of damages is valid so long as his/her fault is less than the total fault of all tortfeasors (“Comparative Fault & The Empty Chair”, n.d.). The lawsuit was determined on the basis of contributory negligence doctrine and comparative negligence. The application of these doctrines as fueled by the need to determine the essential difference in the fault or legal duty between a party or non-party and negligent tortfeasor.
Actions that Contributed to the Suit:
Harry Douglas McIntyre, the plaintiff, was involved in a car accident together with Clifford Balentine, the defendant in the early morning of November 2, 1986. The accident, which occurred in the neighborhood of Smith’s Truck Stop in Savannah, Tennessee, resulted in severe injuries to McIntyre (“McIntyre v. Balentine”, 2013). During the rime of the accident, Balentine was traveling south on Highway 69 and McIntyre entered the highway from the parking lot of the truck stop. A few minutes after his entry to the highway, McIntyre’s pickup truck was hit by Balentine’s Peterbilt tractor. McIntyre and Balentine had consumed alcohol the evening before the occurrence of the accident.
Notably, when McIntyre’s blood level was measured after the accident, it was .17 percent by weight while testi...

... middle of paper ...

... legal principles related to tort litigation. The main effect of the ruling is its contribution to the need to harmonize these legal principles with comparative fault, which must be conducted in the future.
In conclusion, McIntyre vs. Balentine was a landmark case in the United States regarding contributory negligence in a lawsuit. This lawsuit was filed following an accident in which the plaintiff and defendant were involved though they disputed each other’s claims on the chronology of events preceding the incident. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant on the basis that they were equally at fault despite the fact that the plaintiff suffered severe injuries. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling since comparative negligence is not law in the state and affirming the admissibility of criminal presumption of intoxication as evidence in a civil case.

Show More
Related

  • Geringer V. Wildhorn Ranch Case Brief

    605 Words  | 2 Pages

    4. Facts: It was the time of August in 1986, when William Geringer with his family was on vacation at the Wildhorn Ranch Resort located in Teller County, Colorado. Due to some defective Paddleboating boat two of the family members (William Geringer and his minor son Jared Geringer) were drowned. Mr. Watters, a defendant, was formerly the owner of the resort, but he stated that he handed over the possession to Wildhorn Ranch Inc. “The other defendant, Les Bretzke, was a contractor with an autonomous company that endow with repair services and repair construction to the resort.” During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of

    Read More

  • Perin V. Hayne Case Summary

    1160 Words  | 3 Pages

    “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

    Read More

  • Reyes V. Missouri Pac. R. Co. Case Study

    818 Words  | 2 Pages

    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,

    Read More

  • Mamo V Surace Case Study

    1105 Words  | 3 Pages

    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 .

    Read More

  • Duty of Care in Kamloops v. Nielson

    694 Words  | 2 Pages

    The case of Kamloops v. Nielson was a landmark decision for tort law, since it established the duty of care principle in Canadian private law, which prior to this case was used in the Anns v. Merton case and expanded the scope of duty first identified in Donoghue v. Stevenson. In the historic case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, duty of care was established to include anyone that could be foreseeably harmed by someone’s actions, creating the neighbour principle. The Anns v. Merton case expanded the scope of the neighbour principle to including public bodies, such as the municipality. The case involved a faulty building foundation, which resulting in requiring repairs for the house, and whether the municipality should have to pay for the repairs, since it was the job of the municipality to inspect and ensure the building was properly constructed. Whether public tax allocations should be subject to tort litigations was placed in question in the case but the municipality was held liable for damages nevertheless.

    Read More

  • Iturralde V. Hilo Medical Center Summary

    1172 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hawaiian Laws also contain a doctrine known as contributory negligence. This means a plaintiff cannot recover damages if he or she is more at fault that the defendant. Furthermore, any possible monetary recovery will be decreased in proportion to the plaintiff’s proved fault. (FindLaw, n.d.)

    Read More

  • Buffalo Creek and the Question of Punitive vs. Compensatory Damages

    1459 Words  | 3 Pages

    Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was of approximately $500,000. For many, this case is frivolous (meaning that the plaintiff’s prospects of being successful were low or inexistent), but it really highlights the question of excessive punitive damages compared to the damage suffered and its causes.

    Read More

  • Mamo V Surace Case Summary

    1300 Words  | 3 Pages

    The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory

    Read More

  • Tort Case Study In Common Law

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss []. The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes [] simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).

    Read More

  • Legal Aspects of Fire Protection

    868 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the civil suit against Firefighter Johnson and the Portage Fire District, the prosecution was charged with providing evidence that negligence by both parties had contributed to the death of Ian Huffman and the attempted homicide of Olivia Duty. Prosecutors allege “Mr. Johnson was driving his personal vehicle as fast as 98 mph on State Rt. 19 on his way to the fire station in Oak Harbor just seconds before he crashed into the rear of Ms. Duty's car at Portage River South Road” (Feehan, 2012, para. 6). The posted speed limit on Portage River South Road was 55 mph at the time of the accident (Curt, 2012). The defense alleges that Firefighter Johnson was using his lights and sirens and that Ian Huffman was not wearing a seatbelt at the...

    Read More

  • Who's to Blame?

    1154 Words  | 3 Pages

    Merritt, Jeralyn. “Is a Bar Liable for Serving a Drunk Patron Who Later Drives and Kills

    Read More

  • The Ford Pinto Case

    756 Words  | 2 Pages

    There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk-benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change (Legget, C., 1999). This was a ground breaking decision because it failed to use the common standard of whether a harm was a result of an action on trespass or harm as a result of an action on the case (Ferguson, A., 2005).

    Read More

  • Aldi Supermarket's Injury

    625 Words  | 2 Pages

    Then consider romeo v conservation commission (1998) 192 CLR 431cases for factors such as obvious risks, low probability, and high burden.  Plaintiff was drinking and walking around some cliffs which were under management of the Defendant Conservation commission. And She mistakenly walked off the cliff and seriously

    Read More

  • The English Law on Vicarious Liability

    1126 Words  | 3 Pages

    Chapter 19. p413. John G.Fleming [4] P419. Textbook on Torts 8th edition. Michael A.Jones [5] Vicarious Liability for Employers. Andrew Scott-Howman.

    Read More

  • a

    780 Words  | 2 Pages

    In an Information Retrieval, result are based on close to the actual, but not completely accurate or exact.

    Read More

More about a

Open Document