Thursday, April 22, 2010

Here is another hypo I recently found useful...

Sue Dutton was driving in Oakwood trying to find her way to a yard sale, when she got hopelessly lost amid Oakwood’s one-way streets and narrow alleyways. She admits that she negligently turned down a narrow one-way street and collided with Jim Ansel’s car as he was driving down the one-way street in the correct direction. Ansel suffered neck and back injuries, and his car’s trunk was crumpled and no longer operable. Ansel’s daughter, Hannah, age 4, was in a car seat in the back seat, and seemed to suffer no injuries.
Ansel’s injuries required medical treatment and physical therapy, causing him to miss three weeks of work at the Honda plant where he worked on the assembly line. His medical bills were paid by his medical insurance. He had accrued enough sick leave with Honda such that he did not lose any wages for the three weeks he was able to work. At the end of the three weeks, he was fully recovered from the injuries he suffered from the collision.
Hannah seemed fine for the first month after the collision. She attended preschool and then stayed nights with her grandmother while Ansel recovered. Ansel had never married Hannah’s mother who died of a drug overdose shortly after Hannah’s birth. Therefore, Grandma Barbara cared for Hannah when Hannah was not at preschool and Ansel was at work. Hannah had been late in developing her basic motor skills because of sensory integration syndrome, and the time she spent with Grandma had helped her with this problem. A month after the collision, Hannah collapsed on the playground, dead from undetected internal injuries she suffered because of the collision.
The force of the collision also caused Dutton’s car to jump the curb on to Julie Bauer’s property. The car smashed through a set of three ornamental garden gnomes displayed in her front yard and on into her garage. Inside the garage were the items that Julie Bauer had placed there for her yard sale that day. These items included used dish and kitchen ware, used clothing and used children’s toys. In addition, Bauer had stored in the back of the garage the intricately crafted quilts that she was going to take for sale in New York City galleries later in the summer. Based on her previous gallery sales, these quilts would have probably sold for a total of $10,000. The car had entered the garage and smashed the table and items sitting on it and then plowed into the pile of quilts. The quilts were imprinted with the car’s tire tracks, and car oil had also dripped onto them.
Sue Dutton has come to us because she has been informed that both Ansel and Bauer intend to file claims against her. Help me to prepare for what we can expect to see in the complaints and answers.
[1] What claim[s] and remedies will Ansel seek against Dutton for himself and/or Hannah? Does Dutton have any defenses to the claims or arguments against the remedies or the measure of the remedies?
[2] What claims[s] and remedies will Bauer seek against Dutton? Does Dutton have any defenses to the claims or arguments against the remedies or the measure of the remedies?

4 comments:

  1. This is what I came up with, in outline form:

    Ansel v. Dutton:
    - cost of repair for vehicle damage
    - consequential damages for loss of use while being repaired, if any
    - medical costs for himself, though collateral source may reduce
    - lost wages, although collateral source may reduce
    - pain and suffering for injuries as well as emotional distress for loss of daughter
    - medical costs, funeral expenses, etc. for daughter
    - loss of earning capacity for daughter
    - speculative because of age, developmental issues

    Dutton v. Ansel (defenses)

    - Collateral source (insurance and sick leave)

    Bauer v. Dutton

    - cost of repair for property damage (gnomes, lawn, garage door.
    - market value for items destroyed inside garage (toys, clothes, quilts)
    - Any consequential damages (maybe she is in breach for not having quilts to sell)

    Dutton v. Bauer (defenses)

    - Avoidable consequences (should have had quilts in more secure area, should have attempted to clean/save the quilts)
    - Collateral source (homeowner's insurance)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Would the doctor, if any, that examined Hannah be brought into the suit for negligence?

    Would Dutton be able to argue that it was not forseeable that the child's injuries would be undetected and she would die as a result?

    ReplyDelete
  3. As for the answer above, pretty good but I would hae liked a disussion regarding whether the damages were foreseable, i.e., economic loss rule.

    ER

    ReplyDelete
  4. Two thoughts, 1) Duty to mitigate, the fact pattern seems to suggest that after a fairly serious accident, Ansel did not seek a medical examination for his daughter Hannah. Mitigation issue there?
    2) Professor as to your economic loss rule suggestion, which damages are you referring to? There is actual damage to property or person as to each party. What am I missing?

    Economic loss rule as to which damages?

    ReplyDelete