• 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 “duty” 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 defendant’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 tortfeasor’s conduct, making the tortfeasor liable for the medical malpractice?

    What is the exception to this rule when an “intervening act” turns into a “superseding cause?”

  • Part A: Discuss the traditional common law treatment of plaintiff’s contributory negligence upon plaintiff’s opportunity to collect damages. Discuss the theory of comparative negligence between plaintiff and defendant, and how it affects plaintiff’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 “last clear chance” 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.

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.