Woody and Smiley may sue Vicaria for negligence. In order to prove negligence, Woody must show duty, a breach of duty, causation, a proximate cause of harm, and actual harm.
We would prove Vicaria had a duty of reasonable care to Woody and Smiley because of the special relationship between a pilot and a passenger. Vicaria’s agreement to fly Woody and Smiley proves the existence of a special relationship needed to establish a duty of reasonable care. We would establish a breach of duty by proving Vicaria had done something a reasonable person would never do. The fact that she agreed to fly while being under the influence proves she had done something no reasonable pilot would do.
Causation can be established using both the traditional, or “but-for”, test and the substantial factor test. If using the traditional test, we would argue that the plane collision would not have collided had Vicaria not flown the plane while under the influence and …show more content…
In Mohr v. Williams, the court indicated that it is unnecessary to prove the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff as long as the action was unlawful. The court also concluded a surgical operation completed by a physician without expressed or implied consent is unlawful, unless the circumstances are life threatening. We could prove the operation was wrongful because there is not evidence to indicate the injury was life threatening; therefore, the doctor required express or implied consent, which he did not have. Woody verbally expressed consent to amputate his left leg only. The doctor may argue that Woody implied consent to amputate his right leg because he instructed the doctor to do anything he needed to do in order to relieve Woody of pain; therefore, his operation was not unlawful. The success of this case relies on the jury’s determination of Woody’s statements as implied or expressed consent, or
We would prove Vicaria had a duty of reasonable care to Woody and Smiley because of the special relationship between a pilot and a passenger. Vicaria’s agreement to fly Woody and Smiley proves the existence of a special relationship needed to establish a duty of reasonable care. We would establish a breach of duty by proving Vicaria had done something a reasonable person would never do. The fact that she agreed to fly while being under the influence proves she had done something no reasonable pilot would do.
Causation can be established using both the traditional, or “but-for”, test and the substantial factor test. If using the traditional test, we would argue that the plane collision would not have collided had Vicaria not flown the plane while under the influence and …show more content…
In Mohr v. Williams, the court indicated that it is unnecessary to prove the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff as long as the action was unlawful. The court also concluded a surgical operation completed by a physician without expressed or implied consent is unlawful, unless the circumstances are life threatening. We could prove the operation was wrongful because there is not evidence to indicate the injury was life threatening; therefore, the doctor required express or implied consent, which he did not have. Woody verbally expressed consent to amputate his left leg only. The doctor may argue that Woody implied consent to amputate his right leg because he instructed the doctor to do anything he needed to do in order to relieve Woody of pain; therefore, his operation was not unlawful. The success of this case relies on the jury’s determination of Woody’s statements as implied or expressed consent, or