Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register
The Offical Matrix Groupchat is online! >>CLICK HERE<<

TTTBE 80: Full Question for Patrons (Patreon)

Published:
2018-06-15 05:00:00
Imported:
2022-10

Content


Files

Comments

Liz W.

Man, it's been a long time since torts, or at least the negligence issue I think is being raised here. So I'm pretty sure this is a negligence per se question, which is probably better thought of as "breach per se," because ultimately you're using a statute to prove by its very existence that someone breached a duty. However, if I recall correctly, the statute has to be preventing the specific harm incurred by the person suing for damages, which is not the case here: the ordinance existed to create efficient automobile traffic, not to prevent harm to pedestrians. I'm going to eliminate D for this reason. I have less thunder to eliminate B, but I'll do that as well on roughly the same logic. Where I get tripped up is the motion for directed verdict. The only thing I remember about this is that it requires that no reasonable jury could find for the other party in light of all the evidence presented. The thing I'm not sure about is whether a reasonable jury couldn't find negligence in absence of the ordinance. Since the bar exam really doesn't want its test-takers trying to make squishy judgment calls, and since literally the only evidence presented to prove negligence was the ordinance and we no know it doesn't say much about the defendant's possible breach, I'll choose C. Without any other evidence to prove breach, no reasonable jury could find for the pedestrian because nothing was offered to prove breach of duty, and thus not even a prima facie case of negligence has been made. I'm going to be so embarrassed after this. Just let me do my regulatory stuff...

Anonymous

C seems like the most logical to me. The ordinance was meant to allow vehicle traffic, so violating it shouldn't prove negligence for a pedestrian act on a sidewalk. Although I feel like there should be a an option to grant the car owner's motion because unexpected weather events should of put the responsibility on the pedestrian to be more alert, much like a driver in a vehicle.