Mia Attruia Homework 4 Problem Set 4 Due 8 5 60 points total 1 6 4 6 The last clear chance rule states if both parties to an accident are negligent the party who has the last clear chance to avoid the accident will be held responsible for losses arising from the accident If someone is negligent that does not give someone else the right to be negligent Whoever was last in the string of negligence is the one who pays In this case I believe the train is at fault because the car had to have been stuck on the tracks before the train had approached therefore the conductor would have been able to see But due to poor maintenance of the brakes the conductor probably couldn t have stopped the train in time Proximate cause chain of events leading to collision the failure of the brakes 2 6 7 6 a The three elements of a tort are harm cause and breach of a duty of care Each motorist has a duty of care to drive within the rules of the road and the prevailing conditions If one of them fails to stop at a stop sign and an accident results then that failure to stop is a if not the cause of the accident And whatever injuries the victim suffers constitute the harm b In this case harm was the rumor that was spread by Al s Donut Shop causing negative affects on Betty s donuts The cause was initiated by the rumor of ptomaine poisoning It is not clear what the cause in fact cause was however because Al s Donut Shop may have had deeper intentions than just to run them out of business The breach of duty is the spread of false information This is detrimental to competition therefore competitors should not spread false information in order to sabotage someone else c The breach of duty the escalator company has here is to make sure people are able to safely travel on the escalator however it may have been the mans fault if his pants were to long and did not pay attention to any warning signs or directions for using an elevator The harm here was very small which was his pant leg getting torn The problem here is that it could have been much worse than that such as him falling down or getting dragged by the escalator The cause here is vague because it could have been a faulty elevator with no warning signs or it could have been the man s fault for wearing pants that are unsafe while standing on an elevator 3 6 8 8 The rule of strict liability with perfectly compensatory damages gives the victim no incentive to avoid the harm On the other hand the rule of no liability gives the injurer no incentive to avoid the harm The rule of strict liability with perfect compensation causes the injurer to internalize the marginal costs and benefits of precaution which gives him incentive for efficient precaution Under the rule of no liability the victim internalizes the costs In this case the rule of no liability gives the driver of the truck the same incentives as the driver in the parked car under the rule of strict liability with perfect compensation because either way someone is paying If the truck is not liable than the victim internalizes costs while under the strict liability rule than the injurer being the truck internalizes costs Both situations are incentives for efficient precaution 2 Type text 4 6 11 8 Truck no liability victim internalizes Car strict liability injurer to internalize Simple negligence xi xi injurer liable in this example Without looking at the contributory factors involved under simple negligence B s faulty driving caused the accident and injured A who had no fault therefore B is liable Negligence with a defense of contributory negligence B is not negligent because A was also negligent for not wearing their seatbelt Comparative negligence under this rule the cost of harm is divided in proportion to the contribution of negligence For instance B might be 80 negligent for the accident while A might be 20 negligent Xi x injurer at fault and Xv Xv victim at fault Due to A not wearing their seatbelt injurer will not bear 100 of fault negligence A is responsible for residual liability the 20 Under a negligence rule the outcome of whether one is found negligent or not is not determined by the cost of the damages but rather by who s purely at fault Only if there is excessive legal standard by the court and if the injurer overestimates legal standard will there be excessive precaution Under negligence costs would be higher because of administration and legal costs The court would have to open investigation to see the root of the negligence etc while under strict liability it is easier to show harm It is an addition efficiency argument for comparing them because the strict liability would engage in lower transaction costs and less social harm therefore more efficient High litigation costs may cause investors to withdraw funds and reduce activities that risk lawsuits Therefore the proposition is mistaken Yes the employer is still liable Under respondeat superior an employer will be held to answer for the intentional torts of an employee if the employee was acting within scope of his employment This rule creates an incentive for the employer to take care in selecting employees It is the employer s responsibility to hire exceptional workers Because this employer did not take the time to understand whom he was hiring he did not take efficient precautionary measures 5 6 20 8 6 7 4 8 7 7 5 8 8 7 11 8 Caps and limitations on litigation awards can be associated with the principle of rent control in that a price ceiling can be used as protection against excessive litigation fees taking from the losing party