Question

Jim was in a hurry to get to an appointment and was driving his automobile along a city street. He approached an intersection where the light was yellow so he speeded up to get through that intersection. In fact, by the time he reached the intersection, the light turned red. Jim, however, went through anyway. On the cross street, a car driven by Charles went through the intersection since Charles noted that his light had just turned green. Charles hit Jim's car and caused substantial injury to Jim. Charles was not hurt. An ambulance was called to take Jim to the hospital, but the ambulance got lost on the way to the accident location. The operator taking the call made a few mistakes. The operator did not keep the caller on the line, wrote down the wrong address and did not read the address back to the caller to check that address. By the time that the ambulance found the accident, Jim was in much worse shape from loss of blood. Jim was taken to the hospital where emergency surgery was completed. Although Jim lived for 24 hours, he ultimately died. The evidence will show that Jim would have had a better chance to live if the ambulance had arrived on time. Jim was not married but had lived with the same woman, Jill, for 4 years. Jim and Jill had a son that is now 2 years of age. Jim was an accountant with a major accounting firm. Jill has consulted an attorney and would like to bring an action against Charles for the injury and death of Jim. Using the same set of facts as Question 14, if the action for Jim's death generates a substantial judgment, who will receive the money from that judgment? A. Jill will receive all of the money and will be expected to share it with the child. B. Jill and the child will receive the money jointly. C. The child will receive the money. D. Since Jim had no spouse, Jim's parents or other next of kin will receive the money.

Answer 1

Jim's lack of a legal spouse means the distribution of the judgment money would follow intestate succession laws Thus option B is the correct option.

Step-by-step explanation

In the given scenario, since Jim was not married, the distribution of the judgment money would follow legal guidelines. The applicable legal principle is typically based on intestate succession laws, which govern the distribution of assets in the absence of a will. In this case, as Jim was not married, the money would be allocated to his closest surviving relatives.

Jill, being Jim's longtime partner and the mother of his child, would likely be recognized as the common-law spouse. Common-law marriages are recognized in some jurisdictions, granting legal rights to partners who have lived together for an extended period. As a result, Jill would be entitled to a share of the judgment money. Furthermore, since Jim and Jill share a child, it is reasonable to expect that the money would be jointly awarded to Jill and the child, ensuring the financial well-being of both.

In essence, the joint allocation aligns with the legal and ethical considerations surrounding familial relationships and the financial responsibilities of parents towards their children. This outcome aims to provide support to both the surviving partner, Jill, and the dependent child, recognizing their relationship to the deceased.

Therefore option B is the correct option.