proximate cause

 proximate cause

A proximate cause is an event that leads to an injury to the plaintiff due to an intentional wrongful doing or negligence by the defendant(Landers, 2019). In order to win lawfully for damages as a result of negligence, it is vital to plead proximate cause and prove in trial that it was the sole reason for the injury to the plaintiff. At times, there are intervening causes that come between the injured plaintiff and the original negligence. The defendant is not liable when the intervening reason is the leading cause of the injury. In criminal law, the defendant’s responsibility might be reduced if found out that the injured person also contributed to some extent to the accident. In such a scenario, the amount of compensation is calculated in percentage form in regards to the contribution of both parties to the injury.

To be successful in defending a case against negligence, the defendant should try to negate some of the elements in the injured person’s cause of action. The defendant provides evidence that they do not owe the plaintiff a duty. They should prove they exercised reasonable care and did not cause damages claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant may also rely on a few doctrines which might act to their favour to limit or eliminate liability in regards to the alleged negligence. There are three common doctrines, namely comparative fault, assumption of the risk, and contributory negligence(Sheppard, 1844).

Contributory negligence is one of the most common defences to claims of negligence that the defendant can use. It occurs when the plaintiff’s conduct falls short of specific expected standards required for their protection(Landers, 2019). In some instance, the plaintiff might be denied compensation if they are found guilty of being even one per cent at fault. Comparative negligence is where the liability of the defendant is reduced depending on the percentage of which the plaintiff contributed to the accident. Lastly, the assumption of risk is a situation where the plaintiff engages in a dangerous activity and assumes the risks associated with it despite having substantial knowledge. The plaintiff may not get compensation for injuries.

In the facts, Olivia is a proximate cause of injury to Ryan. It is because she neglects the duty of watching over her daughter while at the playground. She is distracted by the good looks of Ryan and forgets to watch over her daughter. Ryan is injured in a rescue mission of Stella who escapes being run over by Bob’s Van. Bob is a proximate cause of injury to Ryan and the young boy at the equipment because of driving a van with very dark tinted windows. It is because such kinds of windows have reduced visibility and have higher chances of causing accidents(Miller & Schoepfer, 2018).

Laura is also a proximate cause of injury to Bob for driving too close and checking text messages while driving. It is against the law to drive while using the phone.

Lastly, the city is a proximate cause of injury to Bob and Laura. The poor state of the road leads to Laura hitting a deep pothole, and she is killed instantly. The city is also a proximate cause of injury to Stella and the young boy playing at the equipment for poor planning of the playground. The equipment into which Bob crushed in was only within a foot of the roadway. Such equipment should be placed far away from the road(Abraham, 2002).

The government is also to blame for the injuries presented in the facts. It is the responsibility of the city to ensure that safety comes first in all construction activities happening around(Landers, 2019). In the facts, we see a poor plan used in the construction of the playground. Some of the equipment was placed near the road, making them dangerous for children. The government has a duty of assigning officers to inspect the safety standards of children’s playgrounds before they allow them to be used. In this scenario, the government neglected this duty and as a result Ryan and the boy at the equipment were both injured. Their lawyers will claim compensation from the government because of the poor planning of the playground.

The city is also obliged to ensure that all roads are in good states before allowing them to be used. Poor roads have led to some major accidents in the country. In the facts, we see that there was a deep pothole in the way which is dangerous to vehicles using it. The city had the responsibility of repairing the road and making sure it is safe for all cars (Sheppard, 1844). There was a breach of duty by the government for allowing the use of a road in such a bad condition. It led to the death of Laura. It should be held responsible for the death that occurred and should offer compensation for the accident that occurred.

In the facts, we see the government also failed in its duty to put signs along the road to inform drivers of potential danger ahead. Had Bob and Laura earlier seen signs of a playground ahead or a deep pothole, they would have driven more carefully at a low speed and probably prevented the accidents that followed. Any other vehicle could still have ended up having an accident as a result of the pothole and its not just Laura would have been a victim. There is an issue where Laura’s lawyers will sue the city for allowing the vehicle to use such a dangerous road without any signs or bumps to reduce speed in such a hazardous area.

As a judge, I would have several questions before issuing a ruling. First, I would ask if the negligence of the various plaintiffs were the proximate causes of the accidents that occurred. These questions will help in understanding the case better and issuing a sound ruling(Sheppard, 1844). I would ask Olivia why she took Stella to the playground and neglected her duty of watching over her. Every mother must watch over their children and have the accountability of what they are doing at all times. I would also question why she let Stella play by herself in the playground that she could see was close to the road.

I would also question Bob for driving a van with very dark tinted windows. A car with such type of windows is a hazard to pedestrians since the driver cannot see clearly outside the vehicle. It increases the chances of causing accidents. Such vehicles are deemed dangerous on the road(Page, 2003). I would also question him why he was driving an unregistered van. All cars are supposed to be registered and well documented for. It makes it easy to trace the owner in case of any incident. In the facts, if Bob decided to disappears after the accident, it would be not very easy to file claims on him since the vehicle is not registered. It would also be difficult to track the owner.

I would also question the city for the poor state of the road before making my ruling. The city has a duty of ensuring the way is in perfect condition before allowing any vehicles to use it(Miller & Schoepfer, 2018). The roads should be repaired immediately in case of any damages and clear signs placed along the way to inform drivers of any danger ahead. I would also ask the government why it permitted a playground to be built so close to the road. Such a plan of having a playground near the road is a hazard to children and should not be allowed. Lastly, I would question why the government does not allocate safety officials to investigate hazardous areas and warn the public against such places.

According to the facts, Ryan is entitled to damages. He got injured on a rescue mission to save Stella from being run over by Bob. It is supposed to be a mother’s duty to watch over their children(Page, 2003). Due to Olivia’s negligence, an accident occurred. If it were not for Ryan’s effort, Stella would have been severely injured. Olivia is liable for Ryan’s damages because he acted swiftly to save her daughter and got wounded in the process. If she had watched over her daughter, she would not have wandered over to the road.

The young boy who was also knocked off the playground equipment is also entitled to damages. The city has the responsibility of ensuring proper planning of any facility or construction within its boundaries(Abraham, 2002). It is also obliged to ensure the safety of everyone within the city. According to the facts, the government allowed the construction of a playground close to the road. The city is liable for the little boy’s injury as well as Bob. Bob is liable for driving a van with tinted windows which increased the likelihood of the accident.

Lastly, Laura is entitled to damages because of being involved in an accident which was partly caused by the poor nature of the road. The government has to ensure that all avenues are in proper working condition before allowing for their use(Page, 2003). In the facts, Laura’s death was caused by the vehicle hitting a deep pothole that was on the road. Her death would have been prevented if the road was in better condition. The city is liable for the demise of Laura since it neglected its duty in ensuring safety on the streets. The only other fact I would want to know is who the van Bob was driving belonged to. This makes it easier to make a ruling on who is liable for compensation of injuries caused by the van.

In conclusion, A proximate cause is an event that leads to an injury to the plaintiff due to an intentional wrongful doing or negligence by the defendant(Landers, 2019). There are three common doctrines, namely comparative fault, assumption of the risk and contributory negligence. Contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff’s conduct falls short of specific expected standards required for their protection. Comparative negligence is where the liability of the defendant is reduced depending on the percentage of which the plaintiff contributed to the accident. Assumption of risk is a situation where the plaintiff engages in a dangerous activity and assumes the risks associated with it despite having substantial knowledge.