Alex Cooper Negligence Case

Improved Essays
In this trial, the question the court is being asked to answer is whether Alex Cooper was responsible for his own injuries. Throughout this trial, the law applied was negligence. Negligence is broken down into four parts: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Due to the nature of this trial as a civil suit, the plaintiff had the burden of proof, meaning the burden to prove by the greater weight of the credible evidence.
On the night of October 5, 2012, Taylor Hamilton was driving his mother’s Lincoln Town car to P-Cubed. As he was driving down Nash Street, the plaintiff, Alex Cooper dashed from the woods, without looking, wearing a dark hoodie and jeans. He ran into the first lane of traffic before running in front of Taylor Hamilton’s car and being struck. Hamilton was unable to see Cooper before she dashed onto the street because the poor lighting and Cooper’s dark clothing. As soon as Hamilton saw Cooper, he slammed the brakes, but it was too late. This is a driver’s worst nightmare, that someone comes running out in front of you and you don’t have time to stop.
Taylor Hamilton testified
…show more content…
In addition, Crawley’s report contradicts the statement of Housman, who says “the kid didn’t even seem to look both ways’ and the statement of Cooper herself who states that she “must have looked both ways”. In his report Crawley states that Miss Cooper “looked both ways”. He also states that Cooper “began to walk out onto Nash street”, while the affidavits of Housman and Hamilton report that Cooper ran out onto the street. Evan Cooper herself states that she “started jogging across the street”. In addition, Crawley used calculations for the headlights on Cooper’s car that do not account for the incline of the street. Crawley also used different numbers for the reaction time than Lattanato, but Crawley’s number’s do not account for the differing reaction times of adults and

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    the occupier to be there. Children The occupiers liability act 1957 allows children to be less safe than adults and occupiers must be aware of this. If children are known to be visitors, special measures may have to be taken to ensure their safety. A case from 1922 established a common law tort from the appeal court: Glasgow corporation v Taylor a local park had a shrub that possessed berries looking like cherries. A child picked and ate the berries and as a result was poisoned and died. The court felt…

    • 1892 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays