Business Law question #3

[husker rob]

It is time for some more help.

 

Dont worry Jen, all quotes taken, and information gathered, will be footnoted with credit going to the proper person.

 

example

 

*AR Husker Fan, HuskerBoard.com, B.S. Forum

 

I dont know how much that will help because the instructor is from the middle of Little 11 country.

 

Steve Simple is a pledge in Zeta Iota Tau (ZIT) fraternity at Minor State Teachers College (MSTC). As part of his pledge duties he is sent to climb the campus water tower to repaint the fraternity’s Greek letters, which had faded in the last year ( the tower has been covered, virtually throughout its existence, with graffiti placed on it by students). The night Steve climbs the tower a tremendous thunderstorm is in progress, making the steps quite slippery and exposing anyone climbing the tower to a great danger of being hit by lightening. Fortified by a six-pack of Hudepohl beer ($1.89 warm at the local connivance store), Steve nonetheless decides to make the attempt. Unfortunately, Steve is electrocuted halfway up the tower by a short circuit in the tower’s pumping mechanism. The short circuit was the result of a failure to perform proper maintenance (this being deferred by the MSTC so that it could pay higher faculty salaries) and was something which had happened before (although only pigeons had been fried in the past). What is the potential liability of all parties in this case.

 

* Negligence

* Fault

* Chain of causation

* Proximate cause

* Assumption of risk

* Contributory negligence

* Comparative negligence

[husker rob]

for me i would think that a drunk frat boy, trespassing, climbing a water tower in the middle of a thunder storm, that gets zapped probably deserves all of the blame, and has probably done the world a favor by not breeding.

 

but i dont think that is what the instructor is looking for

 

so you can see my problem here, right?

[AR Husker Fan]

Isn’t it somebody else’s turn to answer?

 

Anyway, the best way to address this is to look at the entities involved and analyze their roles and responsibilities. We’ll start with the frat (although, on general purposes alone, all frats should be held liable for all evils in the world…).

 

Now, it could be argued that the frat is responsible in two ways – it made repainting the tower a condition of membership, and it planted the idea in the idiot’s head. But, as much as it pains me, I can’t agree. First, there is no indication from the facts that the frat intended or directed that Simple (an apt name, by the way) perform the task in a certain manner. It can easily be argued by the frat that this was some kind of community-driven, charitable act for the betterment of the campus, and that it intended Simple to do it by, say, volunteering his services to the school, which would have sent him out with proper instruction, safety equipment, etc. There is simply no way, from the facts, to hold the fraternity liable. You need more facts to actually assess the frat’s complicity in this.

 

Let’s look at MSTC. It failed to maintain the tower in a proper manner. It was put on notice, by the death of the pigeons, that its omission created a danger. There is no information whether it also failed to properly secure the property, but that is a reasonable inference based on two things. First, the fact that the kid was able to scale the tower in the first place. Second, since the tower was covered in graffiti. The school was aware that people were entering the property and climbing the tower. Therefore, it certainly contributed to the damage to Simple – it neglected to repair the tower, it neglected to seal it off so that students couldn’t climb it – heck, you could even argue that it neglected to place non-skid surfaces on the steps even though that fact was not relevant to the case.

 

Finally, Simple. One thing to always remember – intoxication is never a defense to any action. If you get drunk, you still responsible for your actions – no matter how moronic. That’s why drunk drivers can be prosecuted. This is based on the fact that the decision to drink and become intoxicated is yours, and any harm resulting from your actions is a direct result of that choice. The single exception is when someone forces you to drink. If someone puts a gun to your head and orders you to down 12 beers, and you thereafter drive and kill someone, you’re off the hook – you were impaired not due to your decision, but by the necessity of protecting yourself. The folks who forced you to get drunk would be liable. Of course, that’s not really an issue.

 

So, let’s put all of that together. It might seem that Simple is fully at fault, as you speculated, but even with his intoxication he’s not solely responsible. The school was, again, put on notice that people were climbing the tower and painting it – it had a duty to put in place some kind of barrier or something to prevent it. It is also reasonable to the school to assume that those climbing the tower and painting could be, at least on occasion, intoxicated. The school was clearly negligent, and its negligence was a contributing factor in the result. While Simple is also as fault, his fault is not absolute – yes, he is responsible for his actions, and he there is an assumption of risk in that his actions were his and his alone (again, just because the frat made it a condition of membership doesn’t help – it was Simple’s decision to agree to it rather than telling the popped-collar crowd to take a hike). The issue, then, is the degree of liability that is attributed to each. That is purely a fact question to be decided by a jury or judge – it really isn’t something that can be determined here.

 

In reaching this conclusion, it is inherent that the acts or omissions of both Simple and the school resulted in proximate cause. Simple’s was his decision to get drunk and then climb the tower in a thunderstorm. The school’s was its omission in both protecting the tower from access by unauthorized people and maintaining the tower in a safe condition.

 

So, there you have it – Simple’s acts were part of the proximate cause, and his trespass was a tort for which he shares at least part of the blame for his own injuries. The school’s omissions were part of the proximate cause through its neglect to secure the tower and maintain it. The degree to which each party is liable is a determination for the fact finder, whether that is judge or jury.

 

Oh, by the way, naming the brand of beer is a red herring – it’s there to tempt someone into saying that the maker of the beer should know that people will drink it (especially at that price point), become intoxicated and do stupid sh#t. If that was true, you could drive drunk, hit someone, and then interplead the maker of the alcohol on the same grounds. Never happens, and for the reason I stated – the decision to drink and to drink to the point of intoxication is yours and yours alone.

 

Does that help? Less “legalese” in this one…

[husker rob]

Isn’t it somebody else’s turn to answer?

 

really, i know there is more than 1 lawyer on the board

Does that help? Less “legalese” in this one…

 

 

thanks AR for the help, i am sure that you will be able to find someone's bill that you can pad with the time that you took to type this out.

 

if not send the bill to me and i will get a "Check" in the mail.

 

seriously, we have a decent Local National market here, so let me know if you want anything "Iraqi" (probably made in China) and I can get it sent out to you

 

Rob