HW 5: Ch 19 and 20 Ch 19 Case Application a-d Application Questions 4, 5, and 6 Ch 20 Application Questions 1, 2, 6, and 7
Ch 19 Case Application a-d a.There are four elements of negligence: (1)Existence of a legal duty to use reasonable care. Michael has a legal duty to protect others from harm. This also includes a legal duty toward Nate. Michael should have been aware of Nate's presence and should not have fired into the bush without first determining Nate's location. The first requirement is met. (2)Failure to perform that duty. Michael quickly fired the rifle into the bush without first determining if Nate or a deer caused the movement. It appears that Michael did not take the necessary precautions to protect Nate from harm. The second requirement is met. (3)Damages or injury to the claimant. Since Nate was injured, this requirement is met. (4)Proximate cause relationship. There must be an unbroken chain of events between the negligent act and infliction of damages. In this case, Michael's actions were the proximate cause of loss. The four requirements of a negligent act are satisfied, and Michael is guilty of negligence. b.Under the contributory negligence doctrine, if a person contributes to his or her injury, the injured person cannot collect damages. Nate should be aware of the dangers in hunting. If he contributed to his own injury and the state uses contributory negligence, he should not collect. Michael will have to show, however, that Nate is guilty of contributory negligence. c.Yes. The damage award would be reduced. Under the comparative negligence doctrine, if an injured person contributed to the injury, he or she can still collect damages but the damage award will be reduced. d.Michael would be considered a trespasser since he did not obtain permission to hunt on the farmer's land. In general, a trespasser takes the property as he or she finds it. The farmer has no legal obligation to warn Michael of the marshy pond and is not liable for damages. Application Questions 4, 5, and 6 4. Under a pure comparative negligence law, you can collect damages for your injury even if you are negligent, but your damage award is reduced proportionately. Mathew has actual damages of $50,000. Because he is 40 percent at fault, his damage award is reduced 40 percent. Mathew will collect $30,000 for his injury. 5.Dr. Jones is presumed negligent under the doctrine ofres ipsa loquitor:"the thing speaks for itself." The fact that the incision was made on the wrong knee is grounds for recovery under this doctrine. The surgeon had exclusive control over the surgical procedure, the patient did not contribute to the error in any way, and arthroscopic surgery on the wrong knee normally does not occur unless negligence is involved. 6.The legal doctrine that might apply in this case is the last clear chance rule. This rule states that a plaintiff who is endangered by his or her own negligence can still recover damages from the defendant if the defendant has a last clear chance to avoid the accident but fails to do so. If Sarah can prove that the motorist had a last clear chance to avoid hitting her, the motorist would be guilty of negligence.
Ch 20 Application Questions 1, 2, 6, and 7 1.(a) Covered. Alan's son is covered as a member of the family. The maximum amount paid would be $100,000, which is the per-person limit. (b)Covered. The liability insurance on the borrowed car is primary, Alan's insurance is excess. Damage to the other car is covered under property damage liability for $15,000. Collision coverage, if any, on the friend's car would be primary, and Alan's policy would be excess. If there is no collision coverage on the friend's car, Alan's policy would be primary and would pay $4,500. (c)As the daughter's boyfriend had permission to use the vehicle, he would have coverage under Alan's policy, and $50,000 would be paid if he were legally liable. (d)Covered. Property damage to the house in the amount of $30,000 would be paid. The amount paid for damage to the family car is $7,500. The wife's medical expenses in the amount of $5,000 are also paid. (e)Covered. Under the uninsured motorists coverage, Alan would recover $15,000. (f)Not covered. The mechanic is not covered under Alan's policy. If a person is employed or engaged in the automobile business, liability arising out of operation of vehicles in the automobile business is excluded. However, the exclusion does not apply to the operation of any covered auto by the named insured, family member, or partner. (g)Covered. This loss is covered under Part D (coverage for damage to your auto). Loss caused by contact with a bird or animal is considered to be other-than-a-collision loss. The amount paid would be $2,000. (h)The broken window is covered as an other-than-a-collision loss; however, as the loss is less than the deductible, nothing would be paid.The theft of the camera and golf clubs is not covered under the PAP. (i)Covered. This loss is considered to be a collision loss. The amount paid is $1,500. ( j)Not covered. Liability coverage for commercial vehicles and large trucks used in a business, such as a large cement truck, is excluded under the liability section of the PAP. (k)Covered. From the facts, it appears that the girlfriend can establish a reasonable belief that permission to drive the automobile would have been given. However, the amount paid would be only $100,000. (l)Covered. The PAP covers liability arising out of non-owned golf carts. Thus, the loss is covered. 2.(a)Since Jason is a passenger in a covered auto, his medical expenses would be covered under Karen's PAP. (b)Scott is covered for the property damage to Gray's car. Any person using a covered auto is covered under the named insured's policy if there is a reasonable belief that permission touse the automobile exists. Karen is also covered under her PAP for the suit. (c)The spouse of the named insured is covered under the PAP. Thus, the husband is insured under Karen's policy. The liability coverage also extends to the occasional use of a non-owned automobile. However, the liability insurance on the friend's car would apply first, and Karen's insurance is excess. Thus, if the husband is legally liable for damage to the bicycle, the friend's policy would pay the claim. If the friend has no liability insurance, then Karen's policy is primary and would pay the claim. (d)Not covered. Intentional property damage or bodily injury is excluded under the PAP.
Why is this page out of focus?
Because this is a Premium document. Subscribe to unlock this document and more.