Question

The plaintiff says she had to drive home after the office party because the promised transportation wasn’t there. The defendant claims the plaintiff is responsible for drinking too much, staying too late, and choosing to drive home drunk. The plaintiff crashed her car and was charged with DUI.

Was the injury “proximately caused” by the employer’s negligence? Was it a foreseeable result of the employer’s act or omission? Yes or No? Please explain.

Was the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the danger [of driving while intoxicated] an intervening case of her injuries? Yes or No? Please explain.

Answer 1

Yes, the injury was proximately caused by the employer’s negligence. As the plaintiff was returning home after the office party, the employer had the duty to ensure that the plaintiff reaches home safely. But the employer breached the duty by allowing the plaintiff to drive home drunk which resulted in accident and injury. The injury was foreseeable to the employer because when a person is drunk it makes the person mentally incapacitated and there are more chances of accidents. Hence the proximate cause of the injury is the employer’s negligence.

Yes, it was a foreseeable result of the employer’s negligence because the employer knew that the plaintiff has drunk too much and not in a position to drive. The employer also knew that it is illegal to drive under influence and there is a high possibility of accident and creating harm to others. The proximate cause of injury exists when there is a strong connection between an act and injury which is strong enough to make the defendant liable. As the employer’s negligence and the injury are strongly connected, the injury was a foreseeable result of the employer’s negligence.

Yes, the plaintiff’s knowledge of the danger was an intervening cause of her injuries because, if the plaintiff voluntarily enters into a risky situation knowing the risks involved, the plaintiff will not be allowed to recover based on the defense of assumption of risk.