Mail $-$ Santiago,

Word $|$ Microsoft

Document $1.$docx

Content

$4806333$

rn$-$us$-$east$-1-$prod$-$fleet$02-$xythos.content.blackboardcdn.com$/61$ba$56517$dd$94/4806333?$X$-$Blackboard$-53-$Bucket$=$learn$-$us$-$east$-1-$prod$-$fle

$\frac{1}{2}$

$100\%$

A$.$ Read this article.

A bicycle$-$car collision occurred in the valet parking area of the Hotel St$.$ Pierre in New Orleans. Keisha was cycling on Burgundy Street in the French Quarter. She encountered a car door that a valet had opened on a parked vehicle. She was thrown to the ground on impact and sustained numerous injuries to her spine, joints and dominant hand. She brought a lawsuit in District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana. The hotel had hired a valet company, Parking Management Services, to control the parking and hotel$-$access area.

At trial, evidence indicated negligence on the part of both the bicyclist and the valet. In such circumstances, the jury is directed to determine what percentage of liability should be attributed to each party. The bicycle rider was assigned $30$ percent; the parking company, $70$ percent. The jury valued plaintiff's injuries at $$150,000.$ Because plaintiff was $30$ percent responsible, her recovery was reduced by that amount to $$105,000.$

The case was appealed on numerous grounds:

First, plaintiff maintained she was not at all at fault. Courts recognize that the search for the precise ratio of fault is not an exact science. Noting that bicyclists have a duty to be watchful at all times, the court upheld the $\frac{30}{70}$ allocation.

Second, defendant asserted that plaintiff's injuries were not the result of the accident. Indeed, she had prior pain in the same places on her body where she claimed injuries from the collision. While pre$-$existing conditions are factors to consider, they do not bar a plaintiff from recovery where an accident exacerbates those injuries or causes more injuries. The jury concluded that some of plaintiff's injuries were caused by the accident and some were not. This finding also was affirmed on appeal.

Third, the jury awarded $$15,000$ for existing medical expenses and $$100,000$ for future medical expenses. Defendant objected to the future medical expenses stating that such costs are recognized in law as

search