Report and Letter Concerning Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Report and Letter Concerning Law - Case Study Example First of all, Mr. Ford is liable for having been negligent to Ms. Smith.   In the case of negligence, one must establish a duty of care.   To define negligence is to realize that it is the following.   It is:   â€Å"[c]onduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against the unreasonable risk of harm.   A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.†      Obviously, Mr. Ford’s conduct was well below standards established by law to protect others against risk of harm according to the rules of the road.   Mr. Ford put Ms. Smith at unreasonable risk of harm.   Mr. Ford, subsequentially, by diverting his vehicle from the proper direction on the road in front of him, did not act as a reasonably prudent person in making the choice to pass the cars that were ahead of him—solely for the purpose of o vertaking the cars in front of him.To maintain negligence was a â€Å"cause of action,† there are four criteria which must be met:1. â€Å" [T]he defendant had a duty [or a promise to exercisecare] to the plaintiff..[;] [2.]   [T]he defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct..[;] [3.]   [T]he defendant’s negligent conduct was the cause of   harm to the plaintiff..[;] and [4.]   [T]he plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged.†Ã‚  ... 1. " [T]he defendant had a duty [or a promise to exercise care] to the plaintiff..[;] [2.] [T]he defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct..[;] [3.] [T]he defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of harm to the plaintiff..[;] and [4.] [T]he plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged."3 As it concerns Mr. Ford, he first had an obligation to Ms. Smith that that he had the duty to her to be a responsible driver. He then breached such obligation to be a responsible driver by going into her lane just because he wanted to overtake the line of cars ahead of him. Mr. Ford's third cause of action, that his conduct was harmful to Ms. Smith-as Ms. Smith consequentially broke her left fibula and was left with three cracked ribs-is an obvious factor, seeing as how the facts of the case prove this. Lastly, it is apparent that Ms. Smith was harmed in the accident. All of these aspects help prove further that Mr. Ford was negligent towards Ms. Smith. From having suffered this negligence, Ms. Smith has some recourse in presenting her case as a personal injury case in court. Ms. Smith could sue for pain and suffering incurred, which would include the "mental and emotional trauma which are recoverable as elements of damage in torts."4 Mr. Ford would not be able to receive any monetary awards due to damages on his car. He would have no case, as he would be the defendant. Further, the fact that Ms. Smith was convicted of not having vehicle insurance two days prior to the accident does not have a bearing on her receiving benefits from this torts case. However, Mr. Ford is liable to Ms. Smith for having been the cause of Ms. Smith's health problems and subsequent future