56. In this case, which party is likely to prevail?

In a civil action, a plaintiff sued a decedent's estate to recover damages for injuries she suffered in a collision between her car and one driven by the decedent. At trial, the plaintiff introduced undisputed evidence that the decedent's car had swerved across the centerline of the highway into oncoming traffic, where it had collided with the plaintiff's car. The decedent's estate introduced undisputed evidence that, before he swerved across the centerline, the decedent had suffered a fatal heart attack, which he had no reason to foresee, and that, just prior to the heart attack, the decedent had been driving at a reasonable speed and in a reasonable manner. A statute makes it a traffic offense to cross the centerline of a highway.

The decedent’s estate, because its rebuttal evidence is undisputed
The decedent’s estate, because the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of liability
The plaintiff, because the accident was of a type that does not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence on the actor’s part
The plaintiff, because the decedent crossed the centerline in violation of the statute

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

Negligence per se requires: (i) there was a criminal or other regulatory statute/ordinance/law that imposed a penalty for its breach; (ii) the defendant violated that law; (iii) the harm caused by the violation was the type of harm that the law was intended to protect against; (iv) the plaintiff was in the class of individuals the law was intended to protect; and (v) the violation of the law proximately caused the harm to the plaintiff. Even if a plaintiff establishes negligence per se under those elements, however, the defendant may rebut the plaintiff's showing multiple ways. The most common two are by demonstrating that: (i) compliance with the law would cause more harm than violating it; or (ii) the defendant was incapacitated or otherwise could not comply with the law.

A is correct. This question raises the second of those two because the decedent, via the heart attack, was incapacitated and unable to comply with the statute. Thus, the plaintiff's reliance on negligence per se will not succeed. The facts indicate no other proffered evidence of the decedent's negligence. And because the decedent had no reason to foresee the heart attack and was driving in a reasonable manner, it appears the decedent, in fact, was not negligent.

B is incorrect. As described above, the reason the plaintiff's reliance on negligence per se will not succeed is that the decedent's rebuttal evidence negates it. Thus, this answer choice better states the deciding rationale.

C is incorrect. This answer choice pertains to res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa is a doctrine that permits the factfinder to infer negligence when there is no direct evidence that the defendant acted negligently. To establish res ipsa, the plaintiff must show (i) the event that happened is one that usually does not occur absent the negligence of a party; (ii) the harm was caused by something in the defendant's exclusive control; and (iii) the plaintiff is not the one who caused the event to occur. Courts generally apply the «exclusive control» element liberally. Here, even if res ipsa applied, it would create only an inference of negligence. The decedent's undisputed rebuttal evidence establishes that the accident was not a result of negligence, negating any such inference.

D is incorrect. As explained above, negligence per se does not control the outcome because the decedent's estate provided undisputed evidence that it was the unforeseeable heart attack, not any failure by the decedent, that led to the accident.

Note that, if the heart attack had been foreseeable, the decedent's estate might have been liable under traditional negligence principles if the plaintiff could demonstrate that the decedent failed to take reasonable precautions against becoming incapacitated due to a heart attack. The question presents no such facts, however, as it specifically says the heart attack was «unforeseeable.»

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

56. In this case, which party is likely to prevail?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired