Michael went deer hunting with Ed. After seeing bushes move, Michael quickly fir
ID: 2650378 • Letter: M
Question
Michael went deer hunting with Ed. After seeing bushes move, Michael quickly fired his rifle at what he thought was a deer. However, Ed caused the move- ment in the bushes and was seriously injured by the bullet. Ed survived and later sued Michael on the grounds that “Michael’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.”
a. Based on the above facts, is Michael guilty of negligence? Your answer must include a definition of negligence and the essential elements of negligence.
b. Michael’s attorney believes that if contributory negligence could be established, it would great linfluence the outcome of the case. Do you agree with Michael’s attorney? Your answer must include a definition of contributory negligence.
c. If Michael can establish comparative negligence on the part of Ed, would the outcome of the case be changed? Explain your answer.
d. Assume that Michael and Ed are hunting on farmland without obtaining permission from the owner. If Michael fell into a marshy pond cov- ered by weeds and injured his back, would the property owner be liable for damages? Explain your answer.
Explanation / Answer
Answer:a Yes,Michael is guilty of negligence because he shoot a target that he can not see.
Negligence: Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
Elements of negligence: 1.duty
2.breach of duty
3.proximate cause
4.damages
In other words, Micheal had a duty to not shoot a target that he could not see, and as a result, he breached his duty since he shot Ed, who as a proximate result of this accident, Ed subsequently sustained injuries.
For contributory, you basically add the same, but, since ED had moved the bushes and Micheal was not aware that Ed did this, he in fact contributed to his injuries, since, would not expect, or use the reasonable clause of what a normal person would do.
Answer:b I think so, because this means he did not shoot ed on purpose. he will not be considered murder in this case.
Contributory negligence: Contributory negligence in common-law jurisdictions is generally a defense to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. This principle is relevant to the determination of liability and is applicable when plaintiffs/claimants have, through their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered.
Answer:c Yes, because ed also had responsibility .
Answer:d This will be considered trespass, owner is not liable for any damages.