Question

Instructions for Discussion Questions and Current Events For some chapters, we will have class discussions. These exchanges will relate to a question, sometimes contained in the back of the chapter in the Questions and Case Problems section, and sometimes posed by the professor. Discussions consist of exchanges of by students and read by the whole class. I anticipate the discussions will develop and evolve as each participant adds his/her views. What is a quality response ? It is one that advances the discussion by containing information from the textbook or other valid source, or by applying a concept from the text in a meaningful way or otherwise facilitating understanding of the course material. Responses such as "I agree", "Good Question" or "Interesting"are not quality responses. Such comments can be elevated to a quality response by including statements about why you agree, why you think a question posed is a good one, or why you found the material interesting. Don't be afraid to be creative in your answers while working within the bounds of the rules.Consider different approaches. As you participate, do not be self-conscious if you express an opinion that varies from someone else's. Remember, reasonable people can disagree; both sides of an argument may be logical, plausible and sound. Don't be shy. Speak up! Speak out! Ruth carelessly parks her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolls down the hill and knock down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignite a grass fire. The fire spreads until it reaches a barn one mile away. The barn houses dynamite, and the burning barn explodes, causing part of the roof to fall on and injure Jim, a passing motorist. Which element of negligence is of the greatest concern here? What legal doctrine resolves this issue? Will Jim be able to recover damages from Ruth?

Answer 1

The greatest concern in the scenario is the causation aspect of negligence, specifically the connection between Ruth's actions and Jim's injury. The issue would be resolved by the proximate cause doctrine, determining if the injury was a foreseeable result of Ruth's carelessness, influencing whether Jim can recover damages.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question relates to the legal concept of negligence and which element of negligence is of the greatest concern in the scenario where Ruth carelessly parks her car, which rolls down a hill and sets off a series of events leading to an injury. The key element of negligence here is causation, specifically the link between Ruth's original act of negligence and the injury to Jim.

The legal doctrine that resolves this issue is often proximate cause, which addresses whether the injuries sustained were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligent act. Whether Jim can recover damages from Ruth will depend if it is established that Ruth's negligence proximately caused his injuries.

The Doctrine of Foreseeability will be central to determining the liability. If Jim's injury is seen as too remote a consequence of Ruth's actions, she may not be held liable. If the link is established as a foreseeable result of her carelessness, then Ruth may be required to compensate Jim for his injuries.