Question

Analyze means 1) identify the issue or problem 2) State the rule(s) and any exceptions if applicable 3) discuss the facts with the rules, and 4) conclude

Harvey is riding his bicycle, no-handed, and at a very fast speed down a park path. Trish, a jogger, accompanied by her dog, Rover on a leash is approaching Harvey from the other direction. Because he knows that he is bigger and faster on his bike, Harvey expects Trish to move out of his way. Unfortunately, Trish does not and as Harvey passes Trish, he side-swipes her knocking her to the ground and injuring her. Rover is inadvertently released when Trish falls, and he runs off into the road. Monty is driving carefully down the road. Seeing Rover running into his path and wanting to avoid hitting him, Monty swerves driving off the road and onto the sidewalk, damaging his wheel alignment when he jumps the curb. Grandma Jenkins is babysitting young Elvis, her grandson. Elvis happens to be playing hopscotch on the sidewalk across the street from the park. Fortunately, Monty's veering car stops far short of Elvis, and all is well for the tot (except for anxiety he suffered when he looked up and saw Monty's car heading straight for him). Unfortunately, Grandma Jenkins, observing the car veering off the road and heading straight toward her grandson, suffers a heart attack.

Analyze the following questions based on Negligence - (how far does Harvey's liability go? support)

Is Harvey liable for the injuries suffered by Trish and the loss of Rover? (Note: Rover is not dead, just lost) Is Harvey liable for the damage to Monty's car?

Is Harvey liable for the anxiety that Elvis suffered?

Is Harvey liable for Grandma Jenkins' heart attack?

Answer 1

Let us first check the issue or problem at hand.

a) Harvey was riding his bicycle "no-handed". (b) Harvey was riding on park path (c) The cycle speed was fast

It led to series of unfortunate events. Can this be called negligence? Yes, Harvey was negligent.

What rule or law is applicable here? Tort law is applicable for this case.However it was a case of unintentional cause of harm limited to Trish's injury. Just to give perspective of Tort's Law, here are some of the legal terms that the court has to decide upon and these are:

1) Abnormally Dangerous Activity (2) Act of God (3) Act of Nature (4) Actionable (5) Actual Cause (6) Actual Damages (7) Adequate Remedy

Now let us take the questions one by one.

Harvey's liability stops with Trish's injury just because he was riding his bicycle on park path and that too with no-hand. What happened afterwards was a series of event which was unforseen and unintentional.

When the case is in court then the defendent has to show the immediate hurt or damage caused by the unintentional accident where the intention was simply to enjoy riding cycle. The court tries to see whether the defendant was negligent of his duty to act or not and how big the damage was in nature.

Conclusion:

Thus Harvey is liable for injuries to Trish and loss of Rover but apart from that Harvey has nothing to do with the series of events that took place afterwards. This can be said based on the legal terms that the court may look in to, to come to a conclusion whether a pertinent case can be based against Harvey or not.

If Trish wants compensation then the court may look for the intent and nature of damage caused by the accused and based on that and defendant's arguement, can come to a conclusion.