Case Brief Analysis - Essay Example

Case Brief Analysis al affiliation Part I Victoria Houlihand v Frank Burns [1971] US District Court for California Facts The plaintiff’s daughter died when her Jeep, which was driven by the defendant, collided with an army tank. Half an hour before the collision, the deceased and the defendant had stopped at a local bar for some drinks and food. Before the break, the deceased had been driving and the defendant took the wheel after the stop. The deceased only allowed the defendant to drive after he had insisted.

The main reason of the accident was that the defendant had dozed off and did not awaken in time to avoid colliding with the tanker. The top of the Jeep was covered and the heater was turned on. Moreover, the defendant had dozed off several times before they stopped for drinks and food. The case was first heard by the District court and upon the outcome of this court the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. Rule of lawThe law provides that an operator of a motor vehicle is guilty of ordinary negligence if he permits himself to fall asleep while driving.

An individual is also guilty if he continues to drive without taking reasonable precautions against sleeping after symptoms of drowsiness or fatigue. IssueThe issue, in this case, is whether the defendant acted negligently and whether he had any warning that he was going to fall asleep while driving. HoldingThe lower court found that the defendant was not liable for negligence because he did not have any warning that he was going to fall asleep while on the wheel. However, upon appeal, the appellate court found that the lower court had erred in applying the law to the evidence.

RationaleThe lower court found that although the defendant had been drinking, there was no evidence that he was unable to control the Jeep. The court observed that dozing as a passenger does not mean an individual will be unable to control a car when charged with the responsibility. The court was convinced that the defendant had acted in the same manner an ordinary man of average prudence would have acted. The appellate court, however, noted that there was ample warning to the defendant that he might fall asleep.

The court observed that the defendant was drowsy before taking the wheel and did not take any precaution to arouse himself before taking the wheel. Accordingly, the court noted that the occurrence could not be unexpected in the absence of a precaution to prevent it. Part IITO: Shalisha IvyFROM: Senior Litigation Attorney RE: Litigation strategy planDATE: February 2, 2015Claims and jurisdictionIn a civil lawsuit the parents would sue the driver of the school bus and Ridgeview elementary school.

The legal basis for suing the driver of the bus would be negligence. The legal basis for suing the school, on the other hand, would be because as an employer they are vicariously liable for the acts of its employee in the course of employment. Such a lawsuit can be brought in a Federal court because the amount in the claim exceeds $75,000. The case can be brought in the state where the accident occurred; in this case the suit can be filed in Missouri.Pleadings The pleading that would be used to initiate the case is called a complaint.

The complaint sets out the acts and legal reasons for filling the claim. If the defendants want to deny the allegations in the complaint, they would file an answer to the complaint. If one defendant wanted to blame another defendant in the lawsuit they would file a crossclaim. If a defendant wanted to blame the lawsuit on someone who had not been sued and already named in the lawsuit, they would file an impleader. If the defendant wanted to claim that the plaintiff was liable to the defendant, they would file a counterclaim (Burnham 2002).

Motions and procedureIf the defendants were to file a motion to dismiss, the court was likely to grant such a motion even before any discovery was conducted. If the defendants do not acknowledge the issues in the complaint, then discovery is not necessary. A motion on the legal sufficiency of a defense, such as the deceased’s lack of proper lookout to avoid being in the way of collision, should be addressed before discovery begins because it raises a legal question and not issues of fact. A verdict of not guilty for Ms.

Gilbert will not impede the client’s ability to file a civil lawsuit. This is because the standard of proof for the criminal case is not similar to the standard required for a civil case. The standard required for the civil case is lower than the standard required for an involuntary manslaughter case. Therefore, finding Ms. Gilbert not guilty of involuntary manslaughter does not impede the ability to bring a negligence claim against her. Reference listBurnham, W. (2002). Introduction to the law and legal system of the United States.

United States: West Group.