Question

The City of Scottsdale conducts an annual fall parade. For the safety of those parading and the spectators who gather to watch the parade, the city closes certain streets. The road closures require cars to detour around the parade route.

As a result of the detour, Lilly takes an unfamiliar route home and is struck by a minivan driven by an uninsured motorist. Lilly sues the City of Scottsdale for the damage to her car, claiming that she would not have taken that route home if it were not for the parade. The City of Scottsdale admits that it determined which streets to close for the parade but argues that it is not responsible for the damage to Lilly's car
Based on the fact pattern above, what legal issue is central to the argument of the parties above?
Whether the detour was the proximate cause of the damage to Lilly's car.
Whether the city had probable cause to require the detour.
Whether the detour was the actual cause of the damage to Lilly's car
Whether a reasonable person would have taken the alternative route traveled by Lilly.

Answer 1

The legal issue central to the argument between Lilly and the City of Scottsdale is whether the detour was the proximate cause of the damage to Lilly's car.

Step-by-step explanation:

The legal issue central to the argument between Lilly and the City of Scottsdale is whether the detour was the proximate cause of the damage to Lilly's car. Proximate cause refers to the legal concept of foreseeability and whether the harm caused by an action was reasonably foreseeable. In this case, Lilly is claiming that if it wasn't for the parade detour, she wouldn't have taken the unfamiliar route and wouldn't have been involved in the accident.

The City of Scottsdale is arguing that it cannot be held responsible for the damage as they determined the road closures for the safety of the parade participants and spectators.