Memo 2
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Memo 2 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 520
- Pages: 3
MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE:
Senior Partner Steven Bilyeu September 20, 2007 Hobart File
I.
BRIEF CONCLUSION
Dr. Ethel Hobart can use State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). as a defense to the Orcas’s lawsuit. II. ISSUE At issue here is whether a person is liable for civil damages for an act performed during an emergency that may have led to an injury.
III.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Dr. Hobart was traveling on Olga St; she then turned north on Broadway Ave after seeing no cars coming, when she turned she was unaware of the cyclist that was on Broadway. The cyclist then swerved out of Dr. Hobart’s car and into a lane where cars where traveling the opposite direction of Dr. Hobart’s car. At this point traveling on the lane where the cyclist is now on, is Emma Ponton and her 8 yr old passenger Daniel Orca. Emma Ponton swerve to miss the cyclist and hit a telephone pole seriously injuring Daniel. Dr Hobart immediately called 9-1-1 and provided medical care to Daniel until the ambulance. The Orca’s have already settled with Dr. Hobart’s auto insurance for negligence of operating a motor vehicle. The current lawsuit is only for the post accident events that may have led to Daniel’s injury to her left arm
1
where it has limited movement. The Orca’s believe Daniels injuries are because Dr. Hobart’s negligence in moving Daniel’s neck.
IV.
ANALYSIS
State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). States (a)A person who in good faith administers emergency care is not liable in civil damages for an act performed during the emergency unless the act is intentionally or willfully wrongful, including a person who:(1) Administers emergency care using automated external defibrillator; or (2) Administers emergency care as a volunteer who is a first responder to any criminal or terrorist act.(b) This section does not apply to care administered:(1) For or in expectation or anticipation of remuneration, or (2) By a person who was at the scene of the emergency because s/he was soliciting business or seeking to perform a service for remuneration(c) This section does not apply to a person whose negligent act or omission was a contributing or producing cause for which care is being administered. Id. The only part that applies to the current case is section (a). and clearly the accident was an emergency situation that required Dr. Hobart to provide care to Daniel. Section (c) of the State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). would be a viable option to have a lawsuit if they were suing Dr.Hobart for her negligence for her driving but they are suing Dr. Hobart under negligence for her actions after the accident which she would not be currently liable under Id. .
2
IV.
CONCLUSION
I have reached my conclusion on the basis of State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). Section (a). I believe the post accident atmosphere was an emergency situation, and because of the situation Dr. Hobart is not liable for negligence for civil damages that Orca’s have claimed.
3
Senior Partner Steven Bilyeu September 20, 2007 Hobart File
I.
BRIEF CONCLUSION
Dr. Ethel Hobart can use State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). as a defense to the Orcas’s lawsuit. II. ISSUE At issue here is whether a person is liable for civil damages for an act performed during an emergency that may have led to an injury.
III.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Dr. Hobart was traveling on Olga St; she then turned north on Broadway Ave after seeing no cars coming, when she turned she was unaware of the cyclist that was on Broadway. The cyclist then swerved out of Dr. Hobart’s car and into a lane where cars where traveling the opposite direction of Dr. Hobart’s car. At this point traveling on the lane where the cyclist is now on, is Emma Ponton and her 8 yr old passenger Daniel Orca. Emma Ponton swerve to miss the cyclist and hit a telephone pole seriously injuring Daniel. Dr Hobart immediately called 9-1-1 and provided medical care to Daniel until the ambulance. The Orca’s have already settled with Dr. Hobart’s auto insurance for negligence of operating a motor vehicle. The current lawsuit is only for the post accident events that may have led to Daniel’s injury to her left arm
1
where it has limited movement. The Orca’s believe Daniels injuries are because Dr. Hobart’s negligence in moving Daniel’s neck.
IV.
ANALYSIS
State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). States (a)A person who in good faith administers emergency care is not liable in civil damages for an act performed during the emergency unless the act is intentionally or willfully wrongful, including a person who:(1) Administers emergency care using automated external defibrillator; or (2) Administers emergency care as a volunteer who is a first responder to any criminal or terrorist act.(b) This section does not apply to care administered:(1) For or in expectation or anticipation of remuneration, or (2) By a person who was at the scene of the emergency because s/he was soliciting business or seeking to perform a service for remuneration(c) This section does not apply to a person whose negligent act or omission was a contributing or producing cause for which care is being administered. Id. The only part that applies to the current case is section (a). and clearly the accident was an emergency situation that required Dr. Hobart to provide care to Daniel. Section (c) of the State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). would be a viable option to have a lawsuit if they were suing Dr.Hobart for her negligence for her driving but they are suing Dr. Hobart under negligence for her actions after the accident which she would not be currently liable under Id. .
2
IV.
CONCLUSION
I have reached my conclusion on the basis of State Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code S 99.11 (Norbert 2007). Section (a). I believe the post accident atmosphere was an emergency situation, and because of the situation Dr. Hobart is not liable for negligence for civil damages that Orca’s have claimed.
3
