At 9:30 p.m. on February 3, 1995. Mary Ann Eckstein was driving her vehicle along a windy, unlit stretch of road. Ahead of her, Joan Sandow had parked her car on the left side of the street to walk across the road and distribute materials into the mailboxes on the right side of the road. Sandow was wearing dark clothes and a black raincoat. Eckstein was driving down the roadway using her high beams and slowed down when she saw Sandow's car on the side of the road. Eclstein then felt her car hit something and stopped to investigate. After she exited her car, she saw Sandow in the road. Sandow filed a negligence claim against Eckstein, seeking compensatory damages. Eckstein responded to the lawsuit by alleging contributory negligence. The plaintiff responded by arguing that motorists have an added duty of care for pedestrians. The trial court found for Sandow. How do you think the appellate court found? How do you think the appellate court found? What is the basis for your decision?
TheAnswerMan
I can't tell you how it found, because it depends on who the judge was. My guess is that they found for Sandow again unless she didn't show up. I am basing this off of the fact that in civil cases the person who suffers damages wins more often.
Mr Placid
Negligence, and contributory negligence, is a question of fact for the jury. So, unless the jury clearly made an error given the facts that were presented at trial, the appellate court is not going to change the trial jury's verdict.
Orignal From: Contributory negligence question of the appellate court?
Post a Comment