The various ways that this case can be analyzed will result in different people arguing different facts dealing with contract law, agency law, and torts. The plaintiff and their lawyer could attack this case from several angles. Ethics will be at the forefront of this case with the how to go about getting justice for Mrs. Spirelli and her child as they were at the wrong place at the wrong time.
There isn’t much doubt that if the State/Mr. Spirelli would sue Dr. Benzene and/or Mr. Johnson they would win. So the question really is who should they sue? The Doctor could be sentenced at a max to five years in prison plus assigned damages and at a minimum, probation. On the other hand Mr. Johnson could serve anywhere from two to five years in …show more content…
Spirelli, husband of the deceased to sue Mr. Johnson for vehicular homicide, a case that would most certainly rule in favor of the State and Mr. Spirelli due to the blatant evidence against Mr. Johnson. However, the more interesting approach would be to go after Dr. Benzene. He could be charged with negligence. To prove this, the four elements of negligence need to be present: duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. This case as all four present. One stipulation could be the fact that MA is a hybrid state in regards to this so the challenge for the defense, and it would be quite a challenge, would be to prove Mrs. Spirelli was more than 50% at fault. As this was not true because the victim was completely innocent form the facts provided and happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time sharing the road with a suicidal driver, the plaintiff will receive reward in full. Dr. Benzene had a professional duty, as a doctor, to help people like Mr. Johnson and do everything they could within reasonable limits, to prevent situations like this from happening. As this duty was breached, the next aspect would be proving proximate cause and this comes in the form of Mr. Johnson explaining how he was going to kill himself hoped that the insurance policy would relieve his family of the financial crisis. He needed his death to seem like an accident so the insurance company couldn’t exercise the clause in the policy for …show more content…
The family might not know his whole story, such as his depression, and would it be ethical to sue a man in a coma? But it isn’t reasonable to assume the Spirelli’s could just overlook the fact that he is the reason the family is without a mother now. No human can just put that behind them. Additionally, the Spirelli’s have incurred significant expenses from this tragedy and without knowing their financial status, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to think they would need assistance to cover some costs. The money they need will come through the payments of damages. The damages that must be paid are compensatory damages, which refer to the damage of the car. The incidental damages include hospital bills, funeral costs, possibly a rental car if that was the family’s only car. Finally, the punitive damages given by the judge as no life is worth an amount of money. At no time did Mr. Johnson take into consideration the effects of his decision on the people in the car he was going to crash in to. This would punish the “civil” and evil intent of the
There isn’t much doubt that if the State/Mr. Spirelli would sue Dr. Benzene and/or Mr. Johnson they would win. So the question really is who should they sue? The Doctor could be sentenced at a max to five years in prison plus assigned damages and at a minimum, probation. On the other hand Mr. Johnson could serve anywhere from two to five years in …show more content…
Spirelli, husband of the deceased to sue Mr. Johnson for vehicular homicide, a case that would most certainly rule in favor of the State and Mr. Spirelli due to the blatant evidence against Mr. Johnson. However, the more interesting approach would be to go after Dr. Benzene. He could be charged with negligence. To prove this, the four elements of negligence need to be present: duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. This case as all four present. One stipulation could be the fact that MA is a hybrid state in regards to this so the challenge for the defense, and it would be quite a challenge, would be to prove Mrs. Spirelli was more than 50% at fault. As this was not true because the victim was completely innocent form the facts provided and happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time sharing the road with a suicidal driver, the plaintiff will receive reward in full. Dr. Benzene had a professional duty, as a doctor, to help people like Mr. Johnson and do everything they could within reasonable limits, to prevent situations like this from happening. As this duty was breached, the next aspect would be proving proximate cause and this comes in the form of Mr. Johnson explaining how he was going to kill himself hoped that the insurance policy would relieve his family of the financial crisis. He needed his death to seem like an accident so the insurance company couldn’t exercise the clause in the policy for …show more content…
The family might not know his whole story, such as his depression, and would it be ethical to sue a man in a coma? But it isn’t reasonable to assume the Spirelli’s could just overlook the fact that he is the reason the family is without a mother now. No human can just put that behind them. Additionally, the Spirelli’s have incurred significant expenses from this tragedy and without knowing their financial status, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to think they would need assistance to cover some costs. The money they need will come through the payments of damages. The damages that must be paid are compensatory damages, which refer to the damage of the car. The incidental damages include hospital bills, funeral costs, possibly a rental car if that was the family’s only car. Finally, the punitive damages given by the judge as no life is worth an amount of money. At no time did Mr. Johnson take into consideration the effects of his decision on the people in the car he was going to crash in to. This would punish the “civil” and evil intent of the