Question

11 year old Lucy, went sledding on a neighbor's driveway which has been groomed and iced by the owner (Mr. Wilson) for the neighborhood children. Although a lookout was usually posted at the bottom of the drive, Lucy couldn't find anyone to sled with her and decided to go alone. Tragedy struck as Lucy slid into the path of Mrs. Brown's station wagon and suffered a serious closed head injury. Fully explain which parties may be liable for Lucy's injuries, what legal theories should be advanced, and what defenses may limit or deny recovery. (Assume that Mrs. Brown lived nearby and had previously sledded with her children on the same driveway).

Answer 1

PARTIES THAT MAY BE LIABLE	legal theories	defences
WILSON	NEGLIGENCE - PREMISES LIABILITY. LUCY WOULD BE FAULT AN INVITEE	comparative fault
brown	negligence in driving	comparative fault
lucy parents	negligence-----failure to supervise daughter	comparative fault
lucy	COMPARATIVE FAULT - SHE IS HELD TO STANDARD OF A REASONABLE 11 YR OLD

  ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE

DUTY: WILSON, BROWN AND HER PARENTS ALL HAD A DUTY TO LUCY TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO PROTECT HER FROM THIS FORESEEABLE RISK OF HARM.

BREACH: WILSON BREACHED HIS DUTY BY GROOMING THE DRIVEWAY INTO A DANGEROUS SLEDDING HILL THAT ENDS IN THE STREET.

BROWN MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BREACHED HER DUTY. SHE WAS AWARE OF THE RISK BUT MAY HAVE ACTED REASONABLY IN DRIVING HER VEHICLE UP THE STREET. PARTICULARLY BECAUSE SHE KNEW THAT A LOOKOUT WAS POSTED WHEN CHILDREN WERE SLEDDING.

LUCY’S PARENTS WERE NEGLIGENT FOR FAILING TO ADEQUATELY SUPERVISE HER DAUGHTER OR AT LEAST MAKE SURE THAT A LOOKOUT WAS POSTED.

LUCY PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE NEGLIGENT AS AN 11 YEAR OLD SHE IS HELD TO A VERY LOW STANDARD OF WHAT A REASONABLY PRUDENT 11 YEAR OLD WOULD DO

CAUSATION

ALL DEFENDANTS COULD ALSO ARGUE THE ISSUE OF CAUSATION. BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE THE CAUSATION TEST TO BE USED IN WHETHER EACH DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN BRINGING ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY.