Question

BUS LAW 205: NEGLIGENCE

The case involved a large commercial grass cutter commonly known as a Bush Hog. This one was being pulled behind a John Deere tractor by Bill, a local farmer, when it struck an abandoned manhole cover hidden in the weeds of a vacant lot. A four-inch piece of jagged steel was launched from the swirling blades of the Bush Hog. Once airborne, it traveled 54 feet before striking a 12-year-old boy, Aaron, in the left temple. Aaron was an excitable boy with Attention Deficit Disorder and had been told many times by his mother to stay away from the vacant lot because he could get hurt. Aaron, like many other boys, was also fascinated with tractors and other farm machinery. At the time of the accident Aaron was running along the edge of the vacant lot as Bill was mowing and trying to get Bill’s attention (running parallel to Bill and yelling and waiving his arms). Aaron was grievously injured. In the four years since the accident he has almost died several times and undergone eleven operations. His medical bills are well over the cap of $500,000 on the family’s health insurance policy. Expenses for his future care (from this point forward) are estimated at $750,000. But, that doesn’t cover or account for the excruciating pain Aaron feels in his face every time he eats, coughs, sneezes, talks, or does anything with his mouth or jaw. The Bush Hog in question here was fifteen years old at the time of the accident. It was not equipped with side rail guards, debris chains, or any other safety feature used by most of the industry for at least thirty years. The side rails and debris chains were standard equipment on this Bush Hog, and were fairly easy to remove with removal of a few screws and bolts. The side rails and debris chains were removed from this particular Bush Hog by previous owner(s). Bill (who owned other Bush Hogs, other mowing machines, and other farm equipment) noticed this when he bought this Bush Hog, but never did anything to replace those parts. It is impossible at this time to prove the chain of ownership or who removed the safety features. With or without the safety features, the Bush Hog is not a pretty machine; it is designed to one thing - cut down thick grass and brush through the use of a series of sharp blades rotating at high speeds. It is an extremely dangerous, but efficient, machine. Aaron (through his mom) is going to sue Bill, the owner of this particular Bush Hog, for negligence. (Note: This question is only asking you to assess the negligence issues (duty, breach, causation, damages) against Bill. You do not need to discuss any intentional torts, products liability, or “strict liability” issues, or claims against other possible defendants like Bush Hog, the Bush Hog’s prior owners, or the owner of the vacant lot). You can think about all that other stuff if you want. But, the answers below should just be about Aaron’s case against Bill. 1) You are a junior lawyer at the Plaintiff’s (Aaron’s) law firm. The senior partner is trying to analyze potential claims for negligence against Bill (can Aaron put on a case against 1 / Adapted from Chapter 33 of “The Appeal” by John Grisham, © 2008 by Belfry Holdings, Inc, without permission from Belfry Holdings or Bantam Dell, a division Random House, Inc. Bill for negligence?). The senior partner asks you the following questions to help her decide whether to file the case. (Use what you learned from the lecture and the text book).

1) You are a junior lawyer at the plaintiff’s (Aaron’s) law firm. The senior partner is trying to analyze potential claims for negligence against Bill (can Aaron put on a case against Bill for negligence?). The senior partner asks you the following questions to help her decide whether to file the case.

a) What are Bill’s duties to Aaron? (10 points; 2 points per duty listed)

b) How did Bill breach the above duties?

c) How did Bill cause Aaron’s damages (injuries)? (address actual and proximate cause)

d) What kind of damages would you claim in the complaint?

2) You are a junior lawyer at the law firm that represents Bill. The senior partner has heard that Aaron’s complaint is coming, she asks you the following question to help plan a defense.

a) If Aaron sues for negligence, what are Bill’s possible defenses to the lawsuit?

Answer 1

I hope I have addressed each part of the question you’ve asked. Please leave a like if you find this answer helpful, it really helps me a lot and motivates me in providing better answers in future. If you have any doubts, please let me know before leaving a dislike I would surely assist you. Thanks in advance for liking this answer.

1)

a) What are Bill’s duties to Aaron?

First of all, Bill is responsible for equipping the Bush Hog cutter with side rail guards, debris chains, or any other safety feature. Secondly, Bill needs to warn and tell Aaron to stay away from his working area. Other than that, he also needs to inform Aaron’s mother to keep an eye on him while he is playing near the working area.

b) How did Bill breach the above duties?

Bill failed to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duties above. For example, firstly, Bill noticed that the side rails and debris chains were removed from this particular Bush Hog by previous owner(s) when he bought the Bush Hog, but he never did anything to replace those parts. This obviously can cause foreseeable risk of harm, not only for Aaron but also anyone nearby (including Bill himself). In addition, Bill was definitely aware of Aaron’s appearance nearby since Aaron was running along the edge of the vacant lot and trying to get Bill’s attention (running parallel to Bill, yelling and waving his arms) while Bill was moving. Bill could have stopped the machine and done what he needs to do to ensure Aaron’s safety.

c) How did Bill cause Aaron’s damages (injuries)?

Bill’s negligence is the reason that caused the Aaron’s injuries. But for Bill’s negligent act of using the grass cutter without side rail guards, Aaron would not have suffered harms. The Bush Hog is designed to one thing – cut down thick grass and brush through the use of a series of sharp blades rotating at high speed. Therefore, those harms could have been foreseen through Bill’s negligent actions. The Bush Hog without the safety features can cause an accident like Aaron’s at any time.

d) What kind of damages would you claim in the complaint?

The law acknowledges that harm is a physical injury to a individual or property. Aaron was grievously injured in this case; and, as mentioned, he nearly died several times and underwent eleven operations in 4 years after the accident. His medical costs on the family's health insurance policy are well above the $500,000 limit. Expenditure on his future treatment is forecast at $750,000 (from this point forward). Aaron still faces the appalling pain of chewing, coughing, sneezing, talking, or doing something with his mouth or jaw; but this is not obvious and recorded by others, so we can't include this aspect in the complaint. When Aaron goes to the hospital and gets a diagnosis of psychological injuries, psychiatric injuries can also be reported though. It is such a horrific accident, it is possible that someone who has such an accident will always experience psychological damage.

2)

a) If Aaron sues for negligence, what are Bill’s possible defenses to the lawsuit?

Bill's potential defenses against the complaint are to prove the plaintiff's (Aaron's) contributory negligence. Contributory negligence arises when the conduct of a plaintiff falls below a certain level required for the safety of the plaintiff and this action cooperates with the negligence of the defendant in causing harm to the plaintiff. In this scenario, Aaron ignored the advice from his mother to stay away from the vacant lot, because he could get hurt. Also, if there is any sign on the edge of the vacant lot that warns people to stay away from the work area, Aaron may be deemed to have contributed to his own negligence because of his inability to meet safety regulations. Additionally, if there is any sign on the outside of the vacant lot that warns people to stay away from the work area, Aaron can be deemed to have contributed to his own negligence because of his inability to meet safety regulations. Had he not been reckless, Aaron would most likely have prevented injuries.