TORTS

Read this hypo for Torts and answer only IF THE ELEMENT of scope of the duty was met. This is for Louisiana Civil Law Torts. Once you read the hypo, fill in the skeleton below to answer if the scope of the duty element was satisfied. Apply any tests you may deem necessary but stick to the skeleton for the most part.

hypo

On Friday night, February 3, United Van Lines driver Marcus Jacobs was speeding north on four-lane Highway 79 at the intersection of Highway 371 at the permitted limit of 35 miles per hour (mph). The City of Minden managed the traffic light at the junction. The traffic light at the intersection of Highway 371 and Highway 79 was broken and "blinking yellow" for drivers going in both directions because of an electricity outage caused by a rainstorm the day before.

Jacobs' vehicle suddenly died as he neared the crossroads, and he came to a complete stop. Twice this week, Jacobs' engine failed, but he wanted to finish today's run before sending the truck to the van line maintenance garage for servicing. This was the third time in a week that the gasoline pump on Jacobs' truck had abruptly stopped working. Due to this, there would be periods where the engine would not get any gasoline. Jacobs put on the emergency break when the moving van became stuck in the left passing lane, got out, and started walking toward the GMC truck dealership he could see two blocks distant along Highway 79.

About five minutes later, another motorist, Justin Roberts, approaching the junction in the parallel lane to the right of the halted moving van, was test-driving a brand-new 2023 Ford Mustang from the Friendship Ford Dealership. At first Roberts stopped dead, but then he noticed the yellow light flashing ahead. Roberts was unable to see to his left due to the stopped moving van, but he continued through the crossing. When Roberts approached the crossing, he "floored" the Mustang's accelerator, causing the tires to screech and the rubber to peel.

By doing so, Roberts collided with a motorcyclist named Sade Smith, who was heading east on State Route 371. Smith's motorbike was going 5 mph slower than the legal limit. Smith, like Roberts, entered the junction despite the flashing yellow light because she mistakenly believed the signal was operating properly. As Roberts caught sight of Smith, it was already too late for him to turn back. Smith's knee was shattered, her wrist was broken, and she had several scrapes and bruises when she was flung off her motorbike after being hit by Roberts' automobile.

Within the allotted time of fifteen minutes, two police officers arrived to look at the situation. During initial interviews with all three drivers, one police officer made the offhand observation, "It seems to me that Mr. Roberts and Ms. Smith may have seen each other in enough time to prevent the collision if the moving van had not impeded both Roberts' and Smith's views of the junction. But I'm curious about the city's broken traffic signal. At least eight calls to the city's maintenance department about this light have been made since yesterday. A second officer approached Jacobs and asked, "Sir, you do know that under the state motor vehicle code it is illegal for anyone to leave a vehicle unattended on a public highway?" Smith, who was injured in the accident, is suing United Van Lines, Jacobs, Roberts, Friendship Ford, and the city of Minden for negligence.

As a result of the injuries she received, Sade Smith has filed a negligence suit against, United Van Lines, Marcus Jacobs, Justin Roberts, Friendship Ford, and the City of Minden. Please discuss all the possible ways duty may be established or fail to be established for each listed defendant.

Skeleton

The third element that the plaintiff must prove is scope of the duty.

After defining the defendant's duty, the plaintiff must show that his damages are within the scope of that defined duty. The scope of the duty element asks whether the risk encountered was within the reasonable scope of the duty. The scope of the duty is policy question that asks is the rule intended to protect this plaintiff, from this harm, arising in this manner.

The ease of association test is the proper test to determine whether there is a duty-risk relationship. The inquiry for the ease of association test is how easily can the risk of injury to the plaintiff be associated with the duty sought to be enforced.In the typical case, a risk is within the scope of the duty when it is a reasonably foreseeable result of the negligent conduct. Courts usually hold that an injury to a plaintiff is within the scope of the risk when both the injury and plaintiff are reasonably foreseeable. (important!!_)))

Other considerations in determining the scope of the duty include whether there are any intervening and superseding causes and policy questions. An intervening cause is a force that occurs between the defendant's act and the plaintiff's damages and contributes to the plaintiff's damages. A superseding cause is an intervening cause that relieves the defendant of liability; it is typically unforeseeable. Louisiana's policy considerations for determining the scope of the duty include: the need for compensation of losses; the historical development of precedents; the moral aspects of the defendant's conduct; the efficient administration of the law; the deterrence of future harmful conduct; the capacity to bear or distribute losses.

In this case, the risk of _______________________ injury is/is not within the scope of the duty to________________________________________because______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Therefore, the plaintiff will/will not likely be able to prove the scope of the duty element.

Were there intervening and superseding causes? Thanks