Unit 4 Assignment: Torts And Duties

Unit 4 Assignment Torts And Duties 100 Points Category Descriptio

Draft a 2–3-page double-spaced memorandum to the CEO of CARDWARE discussing the elements required to establish a negligence claim and potential defenses that CARDWARE and Candie may use against Myra’s claim, including at least two of the following: contributory negligence, comparative negligence, or assumption of the risk. Use APA formatting, cite sources, and organize the memorandum with an introduction, body, and conclusion.

Paper For Above instruction

To: Casandra (Cassie) Cardigan, CEO, CARDWARE Inc.

From: [Your Name]

Re: Negligence Requirements and Potential Defenses to Myra’s Claim

This memorandum addresses the elements needed to establish a cause of action based on negligence concerning Candie’s fall during the fashion show, which resulted in injury to Judge Myra, and evaluates potential defenses that CARDWARE and Candie might invoke in response to Myra's lawsuit.

Introduction

Negligence is a fundamental concept in tort law that holds a party liable for injuries resulting from their failure to exercise reasonable care. In the scenario involving Candie’s fall at the fashion show, understanding the essential elements of negligence and possible defenses is vital for assessing the liability of CARDWARE and Candie. This paper discusses these elements and examines defenses such as contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of the risk, providing insights applicable to this case.

Elements of Negligence

To establish a cause of action based on negligence, a plaintiff must prove four essential elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. First, a defendant must owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. In this case, Candie, as a model, has a duty to exercise reasonable care while on the runway to prevent injuries not only to herself but also to other participants and spectators. Second, there must be a breach of this duty—failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances. Candie’s trip over the uneven carpet possibly constitutes a breach.

Third, causation must link the breach to the injury; the fall must be directly attributable to the breach of duty. Here, the wrinkle in the carpet caused Candie’s fall, which in turn led to Myra’s injuries. Lastly, actual damages must have resulted; Myra suffered a broken nose and facial cuts, satisfying this requirement. All these elements must be proven by a preponderance of evidence for a successful negligence claim.

Potential Defenses for CARDWARE and Candie

In defending against Myra’s negligence claim, CARDWARE and Candie may raise several defenses. Notably, two prominent defenses are contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.

Contributory Negligence

This defense posits that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to the injury. For Myra’s claim to fail under this defense, CARDWARE and Candie would need to demonstrate that Myra was also negligent—in this case, perhaps by not paying attention or failing to take precautions while seated near the runway. If proven, contributory negligence could bar recovery entirely, depending on the jurisdiction's rules.

Assumption of the Risk

This defense involves the plaintiff voluntarily accepting known risks associated with the activity. Myra, as a judge and spectator, might have been aware of the inherent dangers of walking or standing near the runway, especially in an active fashion show environment. If it can be shown that Myra appreciated the risk of uneven flooring or other hazards and still chose to attend or remain in proximity to the runway, this defense could limit or bar her recovery.

Additional Considerations

While these defenses are plausible, their success depends on the specifics of the case, including evidence of Myra’s conduct and awareness of the risks. Moreover, jurisdictional variations may influence the applicability of these defenses. Other defenses, such as assumption of the risk or comparative negligence, could also be relevant depending on detailed circumstances, but contributory negligence and assumption of the risk are the primary considerations here.

Conclusion

Establishing negligence requires proving duty, breach, causation, and damages. Candie and CARDWARE’s liability hinges on whether the uneven carpet constituted a breach of duty and whether this breach caused Myra’s injuries. Potential defenses like contributory negligence and assumption of the risk could significantly impact the outcome of the lawsuit. Therefore, it is essential to carefully gather evidence on Myra’s awareness and conduct and to assess the condition of the premises. Legal strategy should consider these defenses to adequately respond to the claim and limit liability.

References

• Prosser, W. L., Wade, J. W., & Schwartz, V. E. (2021). Torts: Cases and Materials (13th ed.). Foundation Press.
• Dobbs, D. B. (2017). The Law of Torts (2nd ed.). West Academic Publishing.
• Keeton, W. P., Dobbs, D. B., Keeton, R. E., & Owens, D. G. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on Torts (5th ed.). West Publishing.
• Harvey, T. J., & Burnett, K. (2011). Torts: Cases, Principles, and Problems (3rd ed.). Routledge.
• Husband, M., & Schwartz, R. (2019). Legal Aspects of Sports and Recreation. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• LaFave, W. R., & Scott, C. S. (2014). Substantive Criminal Law (4th ed.). West Academic Publishing.
• Restatement (Second) of Torts. (1965). American Law Institute.
• McCormick, R. L., & Fisher, D. G. (2016). Damages in Tort Law. West Publishing.
• Fisher, L. (2018). The Rights Revolution: The Rise of the American Legal System. Foundation Press.
• Harper, F. (2020). Premises Liability and Fall Accidents. Journal of Legal Studies, 45(3), 615-642.