If you were the attorney for the bicyclist's estate, would you feel you could bring a claim for an intentional tort against the cement truck driver? If so, what intentional tort(s) would you pursue? If not, why not? Be systematic. Again, 24 paragraphs should be sufficient. If you were the attorney for the bicyclist's estate, what claims of negligence might you bring against the driver? Where might you look to find duties breached by the driver? (Hint: try the Oregon Motor Vehicle Code.) List at least one allegation of negligence that you might bring against the driver. (One or two sentences should be plenty to do this.) Based on what you find in the articles and online, can you think of any negligence claims you might bring against the owner or the manufacturer of the cement truck? What do you think either or both of them did that they should not have done, or did not do that they should have done, that caused this accident in light of known risks? List two such allegations of negligence that you think might apply. Be specific! (Note: the doctrine of respondeat superior [or vicarious liability] means that an employer is responsible for the negligence of an employee acting within the course and scope of the employment; it does NOT involve negligence on the part of the employer. In addition, we have no evidence in this case of any negligence on the part of the employer in hiring or training the driver. In other words, you can't use respondeat superior or inadequate hiring or training as allegations of negligence here!) This can be done in a few sentences