Chapter 7 Cases Currie vs Chevron USA Currie personal representative of the estate of her deceased daughter sued Chevron on the theory that Chevron negligently caused her daughter s death Muhammad and Antoine were in a relationship in a car in a parking lot in Georgia and get in a fight Antoine ended their relationship left the car and started walking towards a Chevron gas station Muhammad followed her continuing to argue as they crossed the street Robinson customer at Chevron that day saw Muhammad and Antoine fighting at the station Muhammad was pulling on Antoine s neck and tightening her grip when Antoine tried to pull away Robinson went inside to get her order authorized and told the cashier Shukla that she needed to call the police Shukla testified that she saw the two women verbally fighting and one woman holding the other by the shirt Shukla did not call the police bc she thought they were leaving To use a gas pump you do not have to go inside the station you lift a lever on the pump and a beeping sound inside the station will tell the cashier to hit the authorize pump button Shukla authorized the gas pump for Robinson before she came inside the station and before she knew the women were fighting However this authorization enabled Muhammad to use the pump spray 65 cents of gas on Antoine Robison said that Muhammad asked her for a cigarette Robinson said no two women left the Chevron station with Muhammad pulling Antoine Muhammad said they went back to her car she found a cig and lite Antoine on fire a passerby called 911 Antoine taken to the hospital and died later from the burns Muhammad convicted for murder and other things Robison testified that Shukla authorized the pump after she told her about the fight bc Robison could hear a beeping noise when she went in the station Robison said she did not ask for authorization until after she mentioned the fight and showed her they were standing by gas pump 1 there were no other customers waiting for gas Shukla s testimony was inconsistent about whether she had looked at gas pump number 1 before authorizing it In Currie s wrongful death lawsuit against Chevron Currie said that Shukla negligently authorized the gas pump used by Muhammad and that Antoine died as a result Respondeat superior principle Chevron liable for any negligence on the part of its employee if it occurred within the scope of his job Federal district court gave Currie 3 5 million reduced to 2 625 bc they said Antoine s negligence accounted for 25 of the reason why she was killed Chevron appealed Currie says Shukla negligently activated the gas pump for Muhammad after she saw Muhammad pulling Antoine around Chevron s property she saw that there was no car Robinson warned her that there was a problem showed her where the women were standing Chevron says that Muhammad s actions were not reasonably foreseeable consequence of Shukla s negligence Antoine failed to exercise orginary care to avoid Shukl s negligence Antoine s negligence was equal to or greater than Shukla s negligence Cause of action for negligence includes the following elements o A legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm o A breach of this standard must be evidence that the negligence created a foreseeable unreasonable risk of harm Reasonable minds could differ as to whether Shukla was aware at the moment she authorized gap pump 1 and that this action would create a foreseeable risk of injury to Antoine conflict in the evidence o A legally attributable casual connection between the conduct and the resulting injury o Some loss or damage resulting from the breach of the legal duty In order for someone to be held liable for negligence it is NOT necessary that he should have been able to anticipate the particular consequence that happened just he must have known that some consequence would happen Chevron had an expert testimony from Dr Erickson saying it was not reasonably foreseeable to Shukla that Muhammad would spray Antoine with gas and set her on fire o However in cross examining Erickson admitted that it is foreseeable that gas may be used inappropriately if something is going on someone is holding someone else there is no car container o Robinson and a former gas station manager said they would not authorize the pump in this situation Chevron argues that it was not foreseeable bc this station was in a low crime area and had not been the site of any criminal activity in previous years cites Premises Liability cases owners have a duty to exercise ordinary care to protect those from foreseeable 3rd party attacks where there are prior similar acts occurring on the premises o Currie says she is not talking about Chevron breaching its duty to Antoine to keep its premises safe generally o Currie says just bc there hasn t been criminal activity before doesn t mean there won t be in the future Currie won Kroger v Plonski Plonski filed a negligence lawsuit against Kroger in Indiana said she was attacked by a 3rd party in a Kroger parking lot in Indianapolis Shopped at Kroger went to parking lot placed her purse in the shopping cart opened the trunk began loading groceries into the trunk A man was walking towards her then started running he grabbed her purse picked up Plonski threw her in the trunk and began slamming the trunk lid on her legs Man looked away Plonski jumped out of the trunk and ran into Kroger Man left with purse Kroger moved for summary judgment saying it owed no duty to Plonski and even fi it did there was no breach trial court denied Trial court refused to consider Kroger s addidavits saying they were erroneous info and allowed the police reports introduced by Plonski they should not have refused the addidavits and should not have allowed the police reports bc Plonski had delayed unreasonably in offering them Did the trial court correctly deny Kroger s summary judgment motion o Is there a genuine issue of material fact o Is the moving party entitled to judgment as a matter of law Duty owed to the plaintiff by defendant Breach of duty by allowing conduct to fall below the applicable standard of care Compensable injury proximately caused by defendant s breach of duty Kroger says they have no duty to protect Plonski bc her injuries were caused by an unknown assailant who was not a patron or a guest or invitee In the context of duty which is a question of lw reasonable foreseeability is determined by the court Kroger has
View Full Document
Unlocking...