Case Analysis Of The Gunfight At The Not-So-Okay Corral
Introduction
Multiple events lead to a night of legal issues for Ian and Sylvia. This report will identify Ian, Sylvia and the Not So Okay Corral’s legal issues that arose and the legal tests that the court will apply to resolve them. Finally, I will conduct an analysis of the probable outcomes if the parties decide to sue each other.
Ian
- Legal Issues
- Legal Tests
Firstly, when Ian first picked Sylvia up he was driving beyond the speed limit and acting carelessly which constitutes towards the tort of negligence. Later in the evening, when Sylvia decided to try her luck on the mechanical bull, Ian made a negligent mis-statement by telling her to “go for it”. When Sylvia’s ride ended poorly Ian accused the Not So Okay Corral of running an “unsafe operation” committing defamation. Ian did not know if the derogatory statement he made was true but spoke the slander regardless. The staff at the Not So Okay Corral asked Ian to leave after he began causing a scene, but Ian refused, making him liable for the tort of trespass. Sylvia had injured her elbow falling off the mechanical bull, so Ian offered to drive her to the hospital. Ian told Sylvia he had been drinking and asked if she was “okay with that?”, he then imposed an unilateral contract when he stated “if we get into a mishap along the way, you’re not going to sue me are you?”, Sylvia didn’t directly answer but still incised that Ian dive her to the hospital, suggesting she was okay with the terms. Ian began driving Sylvia to the hospital, again too fast, contributing negligence, when his truck rolled off the road. Ian was left unhurt; however, Sylvia obtained an even more serious injury to her right arm leaving her unable to play guitar and go on her lucrative tour. After further medical examinations, it was found that Sylvia would have inherited a bone disease that would have made playing a guitar impossible for her within five years anyway. The crumbling skull rule would have come into effect once this information was recovered.
Firstly, we question if Ian was negligent when driving beyond the legal speed limit. The court would see if Ian was breeching a duty of care. Would Ian’s careless act of speeding cause harm to Sylvia? The court would then look into Ian and Sylvia’s relationship and determine the proximity. The test for the type of relationship that raises a duty of care is reasonable foreseeability. Next the court would determine if Ian’s statement to Sylvia was a negligent mis-statement if the advice was careless causing only pure economic loss. Ian’ statement that accused the Not So Okay Corral of running an “unsafe operation” would be questioned by the court if it was defamation or not. The court would determine if the statement was derogatory, false, published and refered to the plaintiff. Qualified privilege could help Ian. Ian could argue that his statement had no malice and only people who were entitled to hear it heard it. Ian was asked to leave the Not So Okay Corral but refused. Ian’s consent to be on the property was revoked, making him liable for trespass. A unilateral contract is when only one party makes a promise, the other party's acceptance is assumed from conduct. When Ian asked if she was going to sue him if they got into a mishap along the way to the hospital, Sylvia insisted he drive her; therefore, from her conduct the court can assume she was okay with the terms. Ian committed to a second count of negligence by driving too fast again to the hospital. Ian would be liable if he was careless, injuring Sylvia. The court would determine if Ian was negligent by looking at the reasonable persons test. Ian breached the duty of care he had to Sylvia. Lastly, the crumbling skull rule would reduce any damages Sylvia could charge Ian with.
Sylvia
- Legal Issues
- Legal Tests
Once Sylvia got to the bar she began drinking alcohol at a steady rate, contributing to contributory negligence. Later she decided to try her luck on the mechanical bull. When Sylvia got to the ride the staff handed her a contract that stated that riding the mechanical bull was dangerous and if she was injured she waived her rights to sue for damages. Sylvia was too intoxicated to read or understand the document, but she signed it anyway, implying consensus. Sylvia also assumed the risk that came with the ride constituting towards the voluntary assumption act. Sylvia fell off the bull immediately and damaged her right elbow. Ian told Sylvia he would take her to the hospital. He also told Sylvia he had been drinking and asked if she was “okay with that?”. Sylvia responded saying “I think so” attesting to voluntary assumption of risk. Ian then imposed a unilateral contract when he stated, “if we get into a mishap along the way, you’re not going to sue me are you?”, Sylvia didn’t directly answer but still incised that Ian dive her to the hospital, suggesting she was okay with the terms. On the way to the hospital Ian’s truck flipped off the road and Sylvia suffered a much more serious injury to her right arm; however, Sylvia constituted nonfeasance when she failed to fasten her seatbelt while the car was in motion. The accident left Sylvia with a permeant disability that deemed her unable to play guitar or go on her lucrative concert tour. Sylvia could sue Ian for the damages that where inflicted on her.
The court would determine if Sylvia was guilty of contributory negligence by looking at the last clear chance doctrine. Consensus is implied when you sign a document even though you may not have actually read or understood the terms, which is what Sylvia did. When Sylvia decided to try the mechanical bull ride she constituted to the voluntary assumption act. The defendant must show to the court that the plaintiff assumed responsibility for physical injury and the legal consequences of being injured. Sylvia also constituted to the voluntary assumption act when she got in the vehicle with Ian after he had been drinking. Because Sylvia failed to fasten her seatbelt she was left with a greater injury, therefore, she had constituted nonfeasance. The courts are more reluctant to impose liability in the case of nonfeasance unless there is a positive duty to act. Ian’s negligent driving caused damages to Sylvia. The courts question whether the damages are too remote or not to determine the consequences.
Not So Okay Corral
- Legal Issues
The Not So Okay Corral ran a mechanical bull ride that Sylvia decided to try. She was immediately thrown off the ride and hit her right elbow on the hardwood floor, between two padded matts. The bar had committed nonfeasance to Sylvia by not ensuring the safety matts where properly paced and flush with each other. Staff suggested that an ambulance be called for Sylvia but Ian insisted on driving her. The Not So Okay Corral knew Ian had had too many drinks but let him drive her anyway committing to negligence and failing the duty of care they owed to Sylvia. Ian was upset about what happened to Sylvia and began yelling at the Not So Okay Corral staff. The staff asked him to leave but Ian refused and continued to make a scene when the staff committed battery by grabbing Ian by his arms and legs and throwing him out of the bar.
Legal Tests
The court would question if the Not So Okay Corral had a positive duty to act in determining if they are liable for nonfeasance. The bar was also negligent in letting Ian drive Sylvia to the hospital once they knew he had been drinking. The court would look at the reasonable persons test to determine if they owe Sylvia a duty of care as on occupier liability. Finally, the Not So Okay Corral would be liable for battery if they made physical contact with Ian without consent. Since Ian was trespassing at this point the bar could eject him but they must use reasonable force only.
Analysis
- Ian
- Sylvia
- The Not So Okay Corral
Ian owed Sylvia a duty of care and was negligent while driving too fast, but it is unlikely that Sylvia would be successful in suing Ian. There was no harm done to Sylvia at this point by Ian driving too fast. Sylvia would also be unsuccessful in suing Ian for a negligent misstatement he made to her because there was no economic loss to Sylvia. The Not So Okay Corral could sue Ian for defamation after he made a slanderous comment about their “unsafe operations”. The statement was false, derogatory, refers to the Not So Okay Corral and was published to everyone in the bar at the time. Ian’s qualified privilege could argue his statement had no malice and that the people in the bar where privileged to hear that, so they did not get on the mechanical bull and hurt themselves too. The bar could also sue Ian for trespass after his consent to be on the property was revoked. Sylvia could not sue Ian for injuring her in the crash on the way to the hospital because Ian imposed a unilateral contract. Because Sylvia failed to disagree and insisted that Ian drive her, we can assume she was okay with the terms. Ian was negligent while driving too fast again, but this time Sylvia would be successful in suing Ian for damages. Ian was careless, and it resulted in Sylvia attaining a more serious injury. Ian breached the duty of care he owed to Sylvia and failed the reasonable persons test. Ian was expected to be particularly careful, which he was not. Sylvia had damages that would leave her unable to play guitar and force her to quit her lucrative concert tour. Later medical examinations found that Sylvia would have inherited a bone disease that would have deemed her unable to play guitar within five years. The crumbling skull rule would reduce any damages Sylvia could sue Ian for.
Sylvia would be unsuccessful in suing the Not So Okay Corral for any damages she received because she signed a contract. Even though Sylvia didn’t understand what the contract entailed she is still unable to sue because by signing the contract she had implied consensus. Additionally, Sylvia assumed responsibility for physical injury and the legal consequences for being inured attesting to the voluntary assumption act. Sylvia was aware that the ride was risky, deeming her unable to sue the bar. Sylvia constituted nonfeasance by failing to fasten her seatbelt, which would reduce damages payable by Ian to Sylvia. Sylvia had a positive duty to act and failed.
Sylvia would be successful in suing the Not SO Okay Corral of nonfeasance. The bar had a positive duty to act in ensuring that the safety matts where flush with each other. Sylvia would also be successful in suing the bar as they breached a standard of care to her. The Not So Okay Corral failed the reasonable persons test. A reasonable person would not let Sylvia get into a vehicle with Ian, who had been drinking. The activity was very risky, raising the reasonable person standard. Finally, Ian could sue the Not So Okay Corral of battery after two of the staff members used unreasonable force, grabbing him by the arms and legs, and throwing him out of the bar.
Conclusion
After degerming the legal issues, legal tests and conducting an analysis I found that many of the legal problems lead to nothing. In some cases, a law suit would be successful; however, after looking at all the factors damages where most likely reduced.
