Instructions: Read the facts of the case. In this exercise, you are going to argue both sides of the case while answering key questions about negligence. Try to put yourself in the shoes of each side and make the best legal arguments that you can. Remember to use the legal terms and concepts you are learning in this course.

You Be the Judge:Griffith v. Valley of Sun Recovery, Inc.[1]

Facts:Don Gorney was a "repo man"someone authorized to find and take cars whose owners are behind on payments. A repossessor is allowed to drive away in such a car, provided he can do it peacefully. Gorney worked for Valley of Sun Recovery. He sought a car belonging to Linda Marsalek and Bob Williams. Gorney knew that there had been other, failed efforts to repossess the Marsalek car, including a violent confrontation involving attack dogs. He thought he could do better.Gorney went to the car at 4:00 in the morning. He unscrewed the bulb in an overhead street lamp. He unlocked the car, setting off its alarm, and quickly hid. The alarm aroused the neighborhood. Williams and a neighbor, Griffith, investigated and concluded it was an attempted theft. They called the police. Gorney watched all of this from his hiding place. When everyone had gone, Gorney entered the car, again setting off the alarm and arousing the neighborhood. Williams and Griffith again emerged, as did another neighbor, dressed in his underwear and carrying a shotgun. They all believed they had caught a thief. Williams shouted for the gun and the neighbor passed it to him, but it went off accidentally and severely injured Griffith.

Griffith sued Valley of Sun. The trial court granted summary judgment for Valley of Sun, and Griffith appealed.

You Be the Judge:

1. Did Valley of Sun have a duty to Griffith?

The argument for Valley of Sun:

The argument for Griffith:

2. Did the company breach its duty?

The argument for Valley of Sun:

The argument for Griffith:

3. Was the breach the factual cause of the injury?

The argument for Valley of Sun:

The argument for Griffith:

4. Was this type of injury foreseeable?

The argument for Valley of Sun:

The argument for Griffith:

[1]126 Ariz. 227, 613 P.2d 1283 Arizona Court of Appeals, 1980