1
Chapter 5
Intentional Torts and Negligence
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
5.1 Assumption of the Risk
Yes, riding the mechanical bull was an open and obvious danger for which Lilya had voluntarily assumed
the risk. The court found the danger stemming from riding the mechanical bull was the open and obvious
characteristic of the ride: the possibility of falling off the mechanical bull. Plaintiff John Lilya had
previously seen a patron and his friend be tossed off the mechanical bull, and Lilya himself had been
thrown from the mechanical bull prior to boarding the bull for his fateful ride. The supreme court of
5.2 Negligence
No, the utility companies are not negligent. The utility poles were legally placed twenty-five feet from
Edgewood Avenue at the far edge of the companies’ easement right of way. It was Sarah Mitchell, who
was driving the car, with the backing of Adam Jacobs and David Messer, who decided to jump the “big
hill” on Edgewood Avenue. In a 40 miles per hour zone, Mitchell crested the hill at 80 miles per hour,
went airborne, and landed on the road and spun out of control with the car hitting the two utility poles
owned by defendants Bell Telephone Company and Indianapolis Power & Light Company. The court
5.3 Proximate Cause
stroller and with her two dogs beside her was not the proximate cause of Filer’s riding accident 50 yards
2
York, 2013)
5.4 Disparagement
No, Zagat is not liable for disparagement. Disparagement is an untrue statement of fact made by one
person or business about the products, services, property, or reputation of another business. To prove
disparagement. Therefore, disparagement did not occur. Themed Restaurants, Inc., Doing Business as
Lucky Cheng’s v. Zagat Survey, LLC, 801 N.Y.S.2d 38, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 9275 (Supreme Court
of New York, Appellate Division, 2005)
5.5 Negligence
entomology. At the time of this incident, Wilhelm had owned beehives for about five years. The court of
appeals held that Wilhelm owed a duty to Flores to warn him of the danger of working with bees and
breached that duty by not warning Flores of that danger. The court held that Wilhelm, the person working
with the bees, was negligent, and that Black, the owner of a beehive business that contracted to purchase
5.6 Negligence
Yes. The court held that Clancy was negligent when he fell asleep at the wheel while driving his truck and
hit and injured Dianna Goad, who driving a motorcycle on the other side of the road. The court held that
Clancy owed a duty to drive his vehicle safely, and he did not do so by falling asleep at the wheel. Clancy
the accident as a result of Clancy’s accident were catastrophic. She spent two weeks in a coma. Surgeries
were performed to medically amputate her leg above the knee and to set her broken pelvic bones and her
broken elbow. Dianna’s spleen could not be repaired and was inevitably removed, resulting in an
increased lifetime risk of infection. Dianna has endured multiple skin graft procedures. At the time of the
3
expected to continue indefinitely. In addition, Dianna has been fitted with a “C–leg,” a computerized
prosthetic leg. A C-leg needs to be replaced every three to five years at full cost. The trial court took
2576 (Court of Appeals of Indiana, 2006)
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
5.7 Ethics Case
court rejected Walmart’s defenses, including the shopkeeper’s privilege and its assertion that it had not
maliciously prosecuted Goodman. The court awarded Goodman $200,000 in compensatory damages for
her suffering. The court also decided that Walmart had acted so badly that it awarded Goodman $600,000
in punitive damages. Did Walmart act ethically in this case? It could be argued that Walmart aggressively
(Supreme Court of Alabama, 2000)
5.8 Ethics Case
No. Defendant Skier’s Choice Inc. is not liable to plaintiff Colbert under the legal theory of negligent
infliction of emotional distress. Colbert arrived on the scene after his daughter had fallen off a boat and
disappearance under the lake’s surface. Instead, he arrived at least 10 to 15 minutes after learning that his
daughter has fallen off a boat and disappeared in the lake. The court of appeals held that the elements for
finding negligent infliction of emotional distress were not met in this case. As far as the issue of ethics is
concerned, it is doubtful that the defendant acted unethically in this case. It may have been negligent in
Appeals of Washington, 2006)