Please check the answer and revise absent part as you think. Addtionally, please keep the format the answer which is following.

Aaron, a shuttle van driver, was driving 10 passengers to the airport. He was traveling at 55miles per hour, the posted speed limit, when he momentarily took his eyes off the road to change the radio station to one with more upbeat music. While his eyes were diverted, he drove past a new speed limit sign without noticing it. The posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour in a construction zone when construction workers were present, in order to prevent any of the construction workers from getting hurt. When Aaron looked up from the radio, a truck that had been waived into Aaron's lane by a construction crew flagman was directly in front of him. Aaron hit the brakes and Beth, a passenger who was not wearing a seat belt, flew all the way into the driver's compartment and struck her head on the dash board. Aaron quickly noticed that the other nine passengers who were wearing seat belts were unharmed, and then he pulled over to the shoulder to administer first aid.Once the van was stopped on the shoulder, Aaron and Beth, along with Beth's husband Charles, got out of the van. While Aaron was trying to bandage the wound to Beth's forehead, Charles became belligerent because of the injury Beth sustained. Charles picked up a two-by four from the construction area and waved it menacingly at Aaron and shouted, "If you don't stop that bleeding in 10 seconds, you're going to be bleeding a lot worse that she is!" Then Charles began to count. When Aaron realized that he wouldn't be able to bandage Beth's wound in 10 seconds, he ran off. There was a trailer in the construction zone that was labeled, "Official Property of Dakota State. For Employees Only. "Aaron ran to the trailer and in his haste to get away from Charles, Aaron broke the door handle while trying to open the door. However, he was able to get inside the trailer and barricade it from the inside before Charles arrived. Aaron stayed inside and waited for the police arrive.

1. If Beth files suit against Aaron, is she likely to prevail? Discuss.

Answer:

Beth v. Aaron

Issue: Was Aaron negligent?

Beth can bring suit against Aaron for negligence. Beth may succeed if she can establish each ofthe following required elements: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.

Duty:

Under the general rule of duty, anyone who acts, owes a duty of care to those who mightforeseeably be injured by that act. Generally, there is no duty to act to try to help, or to rescuesomeone, but there are two exceptions that could apply here. One is when the defendantcreates the peril. The other is when the defendant undertakes to rescue the plaintiff.

A defendant creates a peril when the defendant's actions are the reason that the plaintiff needsto be rescued. If the defendant knows, or should know, that their conduct caused harm to another, then the defendant has a duty to render assistance to prevent further harm. Here,Aaron arguably created the peril by taking his eyes off the road when crossing into a constructionzone and not noticing the change in the posted speed limit, as well as the truck that had enteredinto Aaron's lane, in which Aaron had to suddenly brake, thus causing Beth to exit her seat andbe thrown forward to the front of the van, which is what led to Beth's head injury.However, that action just caused Beth to be thrown forward to the front of the van due to hernegligence in wearing a seatbelt that could have prevented her from being thrown from her seatwith a hard brake occurring. It was arguably Beth's negligence that led to her being thrownforward, hurting herself, and needing to be rescued. Additionally, nowhere in the fact patterndoes it state if Aaron was aware that Beth was not wearing her seat belt. It is reasonably assumedthat Aaron believed that Beth had buckled her seat belt along with the other 9 passengers.However, as Aaron was operating the van, he likely does have a duty to help Beth, even underthis exception.Once Aaron voluntarily started helping Beth, he assumed a duty to continue to provide care,and cannot leave Beth worse off than she was without his assistance. Since Aaron began to helpBeth, he owes a duty to her under this exception.

Breach:

A breach of duty means that the defendant did not meet the relevant standard of care. Here,that would mean that Aaron did not do what a minimally competent person would do in similarcircumstances, and that the harm caused by the breach is foreseeable. The facts note that Aaronbegan administering first aid to Beth, however upon realizing that he would not be able to stopthe bleeding within the give 10 second notice Beth's husband threatened, Aaron abandonedBeth's wound and in doing so left Beth in the same or worse condition than he had found her.Aaron was facing apparent imminent threat of harm from Beth's husband, however, and chose toleave Beth for his own safety. While Aaron may be able to counter this breach with his owndefenses, this action of leaving Beth's aid could establish a breach of duty since it is foreseeablethat Aaron no longer administering aid to Beth would leave her in the same or worse conditionthan prior to his care.However, Aaron took these actions because he was in an emergency situation due to was facingapparent imminent threat of harm from Beth's husband, Charles. Based on the facts provided, itis assumed that Aaron could not call for help, and he was worried that if he left did not tend toBeth's bleeding head injury, then he would be "bleeding a lot worse that she is!" per Charles'threat.These facts must also be taken into consideration when deciding if Aaron acted withreasonable diligence under the circumstances. Here, given the circumstances, it is likely thatAaron did act reasonably and did not breach a duty of care.

Causation:

Assuming that Aaron did breach the duty of care, his breach must be the actual and proximate cause of Beth's harm. Actual cause is established if the defendant was a "but for" cause of harm or a substantial factor of the harm. Here, the facts state that Beth would likely not havereceived her head wound injury if she had not been thrown from her seat due to Aaron's hardbrake following his negligent act of taking his eyes off the road. Dana did have a duty to properlyoperate the van in which Beth was riding, therefore Aaron is the "but for" cause of any harm thatresulted from failing to do so. Additionally, Aaron breached a duty of care when he did providedcare to Beth following her injury, then he would be the "but for" cause of that harm as well.A defendant's acts must also be the legal reason for the harm, which generally means that theharm is within the foreseeable scope of the defendant's actions. As noted in the discussion ofbreach, it is foreseeable that Aaron's hard brake induced the cause of Beth being thrown to thefront of the van causing her head injury. The facts state that Aaron's actions of braking hard andthen abandoning Beth's care are the proximate cause of any injury that was the result of these action.

Harm/Damages:

Negligence requires harm or injury to the plaintiff. This element is met here as Beth has receiveda head injury that is bleeding rather profusely in which Aaron was unable to simply stop thebleeding within 10 seconds and likely continued to bleed due to not receiving due care in first aidtreatment from the initial rescuer, Aaron. Aaron is therefore responsible for any damages causedby his act of braking hard as well as abandoning his attempts to administer first aid.

Defenses:

Three defenses could apply here: contributory/comparative fault, assumption of the risk, and aGood Samaritan statute.

Contributory/Comparative Fault:

Contributory or comparative fault apply when a plaintiff's actions fall below the standard of care and are a "legally contributing cause" of the plaintiff's harm. Contributory fault completely takesaway any recovery of damages by a plaintiff.Comparative fault just reduces the recovery by the percentage of the plaintiff's negligence. Thefacts do not say which approach applies.Here, Beth's actions of not wearing her seat belt when riding in the van driven by Aaron, couldfall below the standard of care because a reasonable person would have worn their seat belt whentraveling in a motor vehicle. Beth's failure to wear her seat belt would be a contributing cause ofher harm as it was likely part of the reason as to why she was thrown to the front of the van andsustained her head injury when she collided with the dashboard, while the remaining 9 otherpassengers were unharmed when Aaron had a hard brake occur. As a result, Beth's recoverycould be completely denied in a contributory fault jurisdiction and reduced by her percentage of fault in a comparative negligence jurisdiction.

Assumption of the Risk:

Assumption of the risk applies when a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily takes on the risk that harms them. The plaintiff must know of, and fully appreciate, the nature and the extent of the specific risk that they are assuming. Here, Beth voluntarily entered the van to be transported to the airport.There is nothing in the facts to indicate that Beth was aware of any construction on the road to the airport before she entered the van and agreed to travel with Aaron driving However, she did not wear her seat belt which we can assume during the entire ride to the airport. These actions could show that she knowingly took on the risk of not wearing her seat belt with a full appreciation of the specific risks based on the reasonable person comparison of another woman of the same age and basic comprehension in understanding these basic risks when traveling in amotor vehicle.

Good Samaritan:

A Good Samaritan statute may offer Aaron protection from liability for his attempts to care for Beth in an emergency situation. These laws vary from state to state in terms of the scope of what is covered, who is protected, and the protection that they provide to the Good Samaritan. Here, there is no mention of such a statute, but if one exists, it may provide Aaron with a defense from liability.

Conclusion:

Given the circumstances, Aaron likely did not breach a duty of care owed to Beth. If he did, Beth's own negligence or assumption of the risk could protect Aaron from liability, as could a Good Samaritan statute.

1. If Aaron files suit against Charles, is he likely to prevail? Discuss.

Answer:

Aaron v. CharlesIssue:

Is Charles liable to Aaron for Assault?

Aaron can bring suit against Charles for the intentional tort of Assault. Aaron will succeed if she can establish each of the following required elements:

Assault is a voluntary act that intentionally causes reasonable apprehension about imminent harmful or offensive contact. The defendant must desire or be substantially certain that hisaction will cause the apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. The plaintiff mustperceive that the potential harmful or offensive contact is about to happen, and the defendantmust have the apparent ability to cause the contact. Here, Aaron was aware that he was about to be hit by the two by four as Charles made the threat, "If you don't stop that bleeding in10 seconds, you're going to be bleeding a lot worse that she is!" As a result, a reasonable person would be apprehensive of an immediate harmful contact under those circumstances and this requirement is met.

Conclusion:Charles threatening to hit Aaron with the two by four does constitute assault because Aaron was aware that he was about to be hit and was fearful of immediate harmful contact.

1. If Dakota State files suit against Aaron, is it likely to prevail? Discuss.

Answer:Dakota State v. Aaron Issue:

Does Dakota State have a potential trespass to land claim against Aaron?

Trespass to Chattel:

For a trespass to chattel to occur, there must be an ownership or possessory interest in personal property, an intentional invasion of that interest, and harm to the interest. Here,Dakota State owned the trailer, so there is an ownership or possessory interest. Showing that thedefendant intended to damage or take possession of some personal property that belongs tothe plaintiff is sufficient to establish the intentional invasion of that interest. Here, Aaron'sactions satisfy this criterion because he intentionally took possession of the trailer.The harm element requires actual harm to the personal property, or depriving the owner of use ofthe property for period of time, or taking it away from the owner altogether. Here, Aaron took ownership of the trailer for a period of time, so Dakota State would not be able to use it duringthat time, and he had to break into the trailer causing actual harm to the trailer. Both count towards meeting this element. Therefore, the requirements of trespass to chattel are met.

Necessity:

The defense of necessity permits a defendant to interfere with property rights in order to preventa greater injury or harm. The defense includes public necessity and private necessity. Public necessity means the potential harm is widespread, such as protecting the community. Private necessity is just protecting another private interest, such as the person's own interest. There was not widespread potential harm here, so public necessity would not apply, but private necessity could apply here since Aaron was apprehensive of imminent physical harm from Charles, as stated above, and escaped as well as barricaded himself inside the trailer to avoid such harm. The idea for necessity is that the interest that is protected by interfering with the private property is more valuable than the interested interfered with, so Aaron would need to establish that hiding in the trailer to protect his own wellbeing and life is more valuable than thedamage done to the trailer owned by Dakota State. Additionally, with private necessity, the defendant must compensate the owner for the propertyharmed, so it is considered an incomplete defense, whereas public necessity is a completedefense. As a result, even if Aaron is able to establish that private necessity applies, he must stillcompensate Darlene for the harm done to the trailer, and it would not cover Aaron hiding in it toprotect his own personal safety.

Conclusion:

Aaron damaging the trailer to hide inside of without the Dakota State's permission constitutestrespass to chattel, and any damages incurred would be owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.