Questions from an intro to law course I'm taking...

[scott]

I've done 3 units of this course and managed, but the following questions have me somewhat stumped; any help appreciated....
****
Ray and Sal play soccer in a men's senior league. They play one game a week and have a regular practice on Tuesday nights. Ray always drives since Sal's house is on the way to the soccer field. One night, on the way home from practice, a young child darts out from between two cars in pursuit of a soccer ball. Ray slams on the brakes and narrowly misses hitting the child, who has been scooped out of the way by his panicked father. Ray gets out and speaks to the father and is assured that there are no injuries to the child. Ray's car is fine, but when Sal gets out from the passenger's side, Ray notices that he has blood coming from around his mouth and a gash on his forehead. Ray administers emergency first aid to Sal and then drives him the four blocks to the local hospital. Sal is not seriously injured, but he required three stitches for the gash on his head and he's lost several teeth as a result of hitting his head on the dashboard (he was not wearing his seat belt).
Sal's dental bills are $1795, and has has to take two days off work in order to get the dental work done. He files a claim against Ray, claiming that Ray was speeding and as a result of his driving he's liable for the cost of the dental bills. Ray counterclaims, saying that he was not speeding and that Sal's injuries are a result of his not wearing a seat belt.


a) What would the first step be that Sal would take in launching his lawsuit?


b) In which courst would this case be heard? Explain. (My guess: civil court, because the government wouldn't be involved as either defendent or prosecutor)


c) Explain what is meant by a "counterclaim"? What would be the result if it were successful? (I know the first part: "In civil procedure, a party's claim is a counterclaim if the defending party has previously (in the present action) made a claim against the claiming party.". As to what would happen if he were successful, I imagine the original claim would be thrown out; but then, wouldn't that have happened if Sal had lost anyway?).


d) If there was an out-of-court settlement, how would the judge determine the outcome of the case? Explain (absolutely no idea)


e) If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? (I think it should depend on whether Ray was or was not speeding. But perhaps the fact that Sal wasn't wearing his seat belt might affect things?)

[HammerDad]

Originally Posted by scott

I've done 3 units of this course and managed, but the following questions have me somewhat stumped; any help appreciated....
****
Ray and Sal play soccer in a men's senior league. They play one game a week and have a regular practice on Tuesday nights. Ray always drives since Sal's house is on the way to the soccer field. One night, on the way home from practice, a young child darts out from between two cars in pursuit of a soccer ball. Ray slams on the brakes and narrowly misses hitting the child, who has been scooped out of the way by his panicked father. Ray gets out and speaks to the father and is assured that there are no injuries to the child. Ray's car is fine, but when Sal gets out from the passenger's side, Ray notices that he has blood coming from around his mouth and a gash on his forehead. Ray administers emergency first aid to Sal and then drives him the four blocks to the local hospital. Sal is not seriously injured, but he required three stitches for the gash on his head and he's lost several teeth as a result of hitting his head on the dashboard (he was not wearing his seat belt).
Sal's dental bills are $1795, and has has to take two days off work in order to get the dental work done. He files a claim against Ray, claiming that Ray was speeding and as a result of his driving he's liable for the cost of the dental bills. Ray counterclaims, saying that he was not speeding and that Sal's injuries are a result of his not wearing a seat belt.

Not that I think any one should be doing your homework, but:

a) What would the first step be that Sal would take in launching his lawsuit?

Filing a Statement of Claim with courts.

b) In which courst would this case be heard? Explain. (My guess: civil court, because the government wouldn't be involved as either defendent or prosecutor)

Small claims court. The claim is less than $25k.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.o...s_Court_EN.pdf

c) Explain what is meant by a "counterclaim"? What would be the result if it were successful? (I know the first part: "In civil procedure, a party's claim is a counterclaim if the defending party has previously (in the present action) made a claim against the claiming party.". As to what would happen if he were successful, I imagine the original claim would be thrown out; but then, wouldn't that have happened if Sal had lost anyway?).

It would not be a counterclaim. That would be if he is counter suing. It would be a statement of defence.

d) If there was an out-of-court settlement, how would the judge determine the outcome of the case? Explain (absolutely no idea)

The judge would look at the case and allocate each party a proportion of blame as each party was partially to blame for the case. The "winner" would be determined by who has the lesser amount of liability assessed to them.

e) If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? (I think it should depend on whether Ray was or was not speeding. But perhaps the fact that Sal wasn't wearing his seat belt might affect things?)

The main points I would look at:

1. did Ray request Sal buckle up?

2. what proof does Sal have of Ray's speeding?

Personally, I feel Sal failed to mitigate his damages by refusing to buckle up. If he believed Ray was driving too fast for the road conditions, the onus is on him to protect himself and the simplest way to do so was to buckle up.

[scott]

Thank you -sooo- much. Seriously, this dang course is -awful-. Awful I say. I managed 3/4ths of it and got 80s anyway, but God, I hate it so much. And I -like- the law, I just think they really don't include everything they should to know how to answer sometimes.

[scott]

Once again HammerDad, thank you ever so much. I went back to the reading part of the course and am embarassed to admit that a) was actually answered point blank in the reading material. I think it's kind of disorganized how they do it, but it's in there.

For b), the course is outdated; it still thinks that small claims courts are still just for 10,000$ or less (dang outdated courses); thanks for the current material.

For c), I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that the question in the textbook is wrong? Or I got something wrong?

For d), thanks ever so much, I went back over the reading material, and nowhere do I see such an answer.

For e), I agree, Sal should have buckled up, but yeah, if he had some evidence that Sam was speeding, it could perhaps transfer a bit of the liability to Ray.

[Mess]

For e) according to the HTA the driver is responsible for all passengers buckling up. If the passenger isn't buckled, the car shouldn't be in motion. I would expect a judge to rule some proportional responsibility here and award partial amount.

[WorkingDAD]

Originally Posted by Mess

For e) according to the HTA the driver is responsible for all passengers buckling up. If the passenger isn't buckled, the car shouldn't be in motion. I would expect a judge to rule some proportional responsibility here and award partial amount.

Last time I check the topic driver (with G full license) is the one who responsible for people under 18 y.o. for adults it their own responsibilities (if driver has G-full DL) and if I remember properly even points on DL and fine...

Did it change recently or I messed up something ?

[standing on the sidelines]

Originally Posted by WorkingDAD

Last time I check the topic driver (with G full license) is the one who responsible for people under 18 y.o. for adults it their own responsibilities (if driver has G-full DL) and if I remember properly even points on DL and fine...

Did it change recently or I messed up something ?

actual its 16 years old

Seat Belts: Stay Safe and Secure

[WorkingDAD]

Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines

actual its 16 years old

Seat Belts: Stay Safe and Secure

yea
my bad... getting old you know. memory staring to giving up

[scott]

Originally Posted by WorkingDAD

yea
my bad... getting old you know. memory staring to giving up

Thanks a bundle guys. I could have sworn that I saw a story that a teen was charged for not ensuring his parent(s) were buckled up. But maybe that was in some other country.

[billm]

Originally Posted by Mess

For e) according to the HTA the driver is responsible for all passengers buckling up. If the passenger isn't buckled, the car shouldn't be in motion. I would expect a judge to rule some proportional responsibility here and award partial amount.

I think this is totally crazy, and what is wrong with todays court system.

Idiot Sal knew he was taking a risk when he didn't put his seat belt on.

Ray would have know that Sal did not have a seat belt on, but thought that Sal is an adult and is responsible for his own safety.

Speeding or not, Sal would have been aware of how Ray was driving, yet he continued to take the risk of not wearing the seat belt.

Arguing about HTA or transferring any blame to Ray is a complete break down of the concept of being an adult and responsible for your own actions - I don't understand anyone who thinks the injuries are anything but Sal's own fault - he should even pay to fix the teeth marks on Ray's dash board!