Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LA180 Unit3 Negligence Action Assignment Sandra Black

LA180 Unit3 Negligence Action Assignment Sandra Black

Ratings: (0)|Views: 204 |Likes:
Published by LegalDoomUT

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: LegalDoomUT on Sep 12, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Sandra Black ± OR Paralegal January 22, 2010TORT LAW
Negligence Action
 Unit 3 Assignment:Jane is a guest at the Luxor Resort. The Luxor Resort offers bungee jumping asone of its recreational activities. Jane voluntarily signs up for the bungee-jumpingactivity. Paul, the resort employee that oversees the bungee jumping, tells Janeand the other bungee jump participants to remove all jewelry. Jane removes her necklace and earrings but forgets about an anklet or ankle bracelet that she iswearing. The bungee cord is attached to Jane¶s ankle and Jane then injures her ankle during the jump. Jane sustains $2,000 in medical bills along with pain andsuffering.1. Discuss whether Jane can successfully maintain an action for negligence.Specifically analyze each of the elements below for a negligence case.a. DutyPaul, the resort employee, had a duty of care to instruct all participants inthe safe usage and risks associated with bungee jumping. Jane had a duty as well.Her responsibility was to know the assumption of risk for such an activity.
Sheshould also have made sure that she paid attention and followed the safetyinstructions.
 b. BreachPaul should have asked Jane, prior to attaching the bungee cord, if she wassure that all jewelry was removed.c. CausationPaul had a duty of care standard for this recreational activity. Paul also hadcertain knowledge about the safety precautions and the consequences if hisinstructions were not followed. Jane did not follow the full instruction to removeall jewelry.d. DamagesJane suffered a broken ankle and $2000 in medical bills as a result of theactivity. She also had pain and suffering due to the injury.
2. Which defense or defenses will the Luxor Resort likely assert? What is thelikelihood of success of each defense?It is unclear if there was a waiver with the risks involved and medicalconditions that would be a problem stated to be signed or any signage postedstating the risks and safety precautions that should be taken. It is also unclear if Jane was wearing shorts that made the anklet clearly visible or if she had on long pants that covered the ankle bracelet¶s visibility. The history does not state if the bungee cord was attached to the ankle with the bracelet on it.Jane did contribute to the accident by forgetting to remove the anklet.Forgetting or Poor memory cannot be used by the plaintiff as an excuse for nottaking off the anklet.The plaintiff has to prove that the injury was proximately caused by the breach of a duty by the defendant. Asserting that the defendant (Paul) acted inaccordance to the requisite standard of care, he can attack the link between act or omission and harm and injury.
ontributory Negligence vs.
omparative Negligence
The doctrines of contributory negligence and comparative negligence takeinto account the relative degrees of fault between the plaintiff and defendant, andattempt to adjust the damages award accordingly.A defendant could avoid liability by proving contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Contributory negligence occurs when a plaintiff's conductfalls below a certain standard necessary for the plaintiff's protection, and thisconduct cooperates with the defendant's negligence in causing harm to the plaintiff.Comparative negligence is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages. The doctrine of comparative negligence reduces a plaintiff's recovery bythe percentage in which the plaintiff is at fault for his or her damages.Assumption of the Risk is another defense that traditionally has barredrecovery for a plaintiff. This applies when a plaintiff has assumed the risk involved in an obviously dangerous activity but proceeded to engage in theactivity anyway. In order for this doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must have actual,subjective knowledge of the risk involved in the activity. The plaintiff must alsovoluntarily accept the risk involved in the activity.Based on the small amount of information provided, I think the defense willuse the aforementioned defenses in this case and will have the most success in

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->