- Part A: The plaintiffs attended a showing of a movie at a movie theater in a shopping mall. At the conclusion of the movie, the plaintiffs (parents and their seven year old daughter) left the theater using a door that opened directly into the parking area. They drove a short distance and then their vehicle was struck by flood waters, caused by a severe rainstorm near the theatre. In their attempt to escape, their seven year old daughter drowned.
The manager of the theater had learned about the dangerous weather during the showing of the movie, including a possible tornado, but had taken no steps to warn patrons.
In this situation, discuss whether or not a court should recognize a â€œdutyâ€ of both the movie company and its landlord to warn patrons of bad weather. In your analysis, be sure to discuss the legal relationship, if any, between the parties in this case.
- Part B: Many cases involve medical malpractice taking place after a plaintiff has suffered an injury due to defendantâ€™s negligence. See for example, Weems v. HY-VEE Food Stores, Inc. at 526 N.W. 2d 571 (Iowa App, 1994)
What is the general rule with regard to whether or not medical treatment sought by an injured party is considered a normal consequence of the tortfeasorâ€™s conduct, making the tortfeasor liable for the medical malpractice?
What is the exception to this rule when an â€œintervening actâ€ turns into a â€œsuperseding cause?â€
- Part A: Discuss the traditional common law treatment of plaintiffâ€™s contributory negligence upon plaintiffâ€™s opportunity to collect damages. Discuss the theory of comparative negligence between plaintiff and defendant, and how it affects plaintiffâ€™s opportunity to collect damages.
- Part B: In a state that follows the contributory negligence theory, assume that plaintiff is adjudged to be contributory negligent for her death by voluntarily riding in a car with an obviously intoxicated driver, to the same degree of negligence as the driver.
Apply the definition of â€œlast clear chanceâ€ found in Coleman v. Hines at 515 S.E. 2d 57 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999) assess whether or not this doctrine would successfully rebut her contributory negligence, and allow her estate to recover for wrongful death.