For Your Data Derdiarian V. Felix Contracting Illustration Brief Summary
February 24, 2019
Edit
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting example brief summary
F: TC ruled inwards favor of P (subcontractor)
D (felix contracting corporation) excavated a hold upwards site inwards the street. P, employee of a subcontractor was engaged inwards this work. Other D, Dickens, ran into the hold upwards site past times his vehicle (intervening cause), in addition to striked P, in addition to P was injured accordingly.
Driver failed to accept medicine (Driver’s negligence)
Dependent concurrent causation.
Driver’s negligence + leaving worksite w/o whatever effective barrier
Manner inwards which D is negligent is of import for court’s consideration.
I: When D is capable of anticipating the precise trend of the accident or the exact extent of P’s injury because the intervening motility (running into the worksite past times vehicle) is foreseeable, whether D is liable
R: When D is capable of anticipating the precise trend of the accident or the exact extent of P’s injury because the intervening motility (running into the worksite past times vehicle) is foreseeable, D is liable
General danger was foreseeable, only the trend of injury was unforeseeable
A: D negligently failed to safeguard the digging site. H5N1 prime number jeopardy associated alongside such dereliction is the possibility that a driver volition negligently hold upwards into the hold upwards site in addition to motility injury to a worker. The foreseeable, normal in addition to natural termination of the opportunity created past times D was the injury of a worker past times a machine entering the improperly protected hold upwards area. An intervening human activeness may non serve every bit a superseding cause.
C: affirmed
F: TC ruled inwards favor of P (subcontractor)
D (felix contracting corporation) excavated a hold upwards site inwards the street. P, employee of a subcontractor was engaged inwards this work. Other D, Dickens, ran into the hold upwards site past times his vehicle (intervening cause), in addition to striked P, in addition to P was injured accordingly.
Driver failed to accept medicine (Driver’s negligence)
Dependent concurrent causation.
Driver’s negligence + leaving worksite w/o whatever effective barrier
Manner inwards which D is negligent is of import for court’s consideration.
I: When D is capable of anticipating the precise trend of the accident or the exact extent of P’s injury because the intervening motility (running into the worksite past times vehicle) is foreseeable, whether D is liable
R: When D is capable of anticipating the precise trend of the accident or the exact extent of P’s injury because the intervening motility (running into the worksite past times vehicle) is foreseeable, D is liable
General danger was foreseeable, only the trend of injury was unforeseeable
A: D negligently failed to safeguard the digging site. H5N1 prime number jeopardy associated alongside such dereliction is the possibility that a driver volition negligently hold upwards into the hold upwards site in addition to motility injury to a worker. The foreseeable, normal in addition to natural termination of the opportunity created past times D was the injury of a worker past times a machine entering the improperly protected hold upwards area. An intervening human activeness may non serve every bit a superseding cause.
C: affirmed