1. Assume that your business partner, Gayanne Zokhrabov, was at the train station when a train, traveling at more than 70 mph, hit eighteen-year-old Hiroyuki Joho, who was running across the tracks. The impact killed Joho and flung parts of his body about 100 feet into the air. Some of them landed on Gayanne and knocked her to the ground. As a result, she hurt her shoulder and broke her leg and wrist. She has not been able to work and has hired an attorney to file a negligence lawsuit against Joho’s estate. (The attorney believes that Gayanne cannot successfully sue Amtrak because of a lack of proximate cause–it was not reasonably foreseeable that Joho would run across the tracks and his body parts would cause injuries to others.) Discuss whether Joho had a duty of care to Gayanne and whether his decision to run in front of the train was a breach of that duty because she was in the zone of danger.
2. Bret D’Auguste was an experienced skier when he rented equipment to ski at Hunter mountain Ski bowl in New York. When D’Auguste entered an extremely difficult trail, he noticed immediately that the surface consisted of ice with almost no snow. He tried to exit the steeply declining trail by making a sharp right turn, but in the attempt, his left ski snapped off. D’Auguste lost his balance, fell and slid down the mountain, striking his face and head against a fence along the trail. According to a report by a rental shop employee, one of the bindings on D’Auguste’s skis had a “cracked heel housing.” D’Auguste filed a lawsuit against the bindings’ manufacturer on a theory of strict product liability. The manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment. Argue either why the court should or should not grant the motion. Only argue one position.
Respond to each scenario in about 100-150 words each. 1 page total. No special format necessary. No sources.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]