Question

Consider the following simple fact pattern: John is a truck$-$driver for a large trucking company, and he falls asleep at the wheel after a long shift and runs his truck into another car. He suffers minor lacerations and is off from work for a week, losing $$800$ in wages. Sarah, the driver of the other car, has a concussion and misses work for six months, losing $$25,000$ in wages. She also now has a serious ringing in her ears that does not seem to have gone away, even years after the accident. Describe: a$.$ As specifically as you can, how modern general tort law would address this situation and b$.$ What specific differences there would be under the proposal. c$.$ Please be as thorough as you can in this analysis. Imagine you are assisting the general counsel of a large university. d$.$ Give your assessment of the impact of this proposal on the university. $1$

Hide entire questioncaret

Answer

Under the current general standard of negligence per se$,$ the plaintiff $($Sarah$)$ must show John's wrongdoing like driving while drowsy to establish liability. John has shown a lack of reasonable duty of care when he drove his truck while drowsy. John did owe a reasonable duty of care to Sarah and to every driver on the road on that day he was driving; thus, John breached his duty of care that he owed to Sarah. According to the textbook, the tort of negligence has four elements: i$.$ a duty of due care that the defendant had, $($John must safely operate his truck by the state traffic laws to prevent accidents that could result in serious injury or death$)$ ii$.$ the breach of the duty of due care, $($John was impaired i$.$e$.,$ sleepy while operating his truck$)$ iii. The connection between cause and injury, and $($John drove his truck into Sarah's car$)$ iv$.$ actual damage or loss $($Sarah was injured, lost wages of $$25,000,$ and long$-$term effects from her injuries thus the defendant must place the plaintiff back in pre$-$accident status$)$ Sarah has proven res ipsa loquitur; with the physical injuries caused by the car accident. Under the Respondeat Superior doctrine, Sarah can establish a breach of duty of care of John's employer. Negligence has been proved in this case because John failed to $1$

Step$-$by$-$step explanation

Generated by AI

exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would have in the same situation.

As for the proposal, it's not specified in the question, so it's impossible to discuss its specific differences or its impact on the university. Therefore, the answer to parts b and d is "Unknown".

In conclusion, under the current general tort law, Sarah has a strong case against John and his employer for negligence. She could potentially recover damages for her lost wages, medical expenses, and pain and suffering caused by the accident. However, without details on the proposal, it's impossible to compare it to the current law or assess its impact.