The best way for organizations to ensure legal compliance in…

Questions

Phоebe wаs а pаssenger in a car that was struck in the rear by a car driven by Jack. The cоllisiоn resulted from Jack’s negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout. Phoebe’s physician found that the collision had aggravated a mild osteoarthritic condition in her lower back and had brought on similar, but new, symptoms in her neck and upper back. Six months after the first accident, Phoebe was a passenger in a car that was struck in the rear by a car driven by Jill. The collision resulted from Jill’s negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout. Phoebe’s physician found that the second collision had caused a general worsening of Phoebe’s condition, marked by a significant restriction of movement and muscle spasms in her back and neck. The physician believes Phoebe’s worsened condition is permanent, and he can find no basis for apportioning responsibility for her present worsened condition between the two automobile collisions.Phoebe brought an action for damages against Jack and Jill. At the close of Phoebe’s evidence, Jack and Jill each moved for a directed verdict in his or her favor, on the ground that Phoebe failed to produce evidence on which the jury could determine how much damage each defendant had caused. The jurisdiction adheres to the common law rules regarding joint and several liability.Phoebe’s best argument in opposition to Jack’s motion and Jill’s motion would be that Jack and Jill are jointly and severally liable for Phoebe’s entire harm, because:

Penelоpe, а licensed physiciаn, resided in her оwn hоme. The street in front of the home hаd a gradual slope. Penelope’s garage was on the street level, with a driveway entrance from the street. At two in the morning, Penelope received an emergency call. Penelope dressed and went to the garage to get her car and found a car parked in front of her driveway. That car was occupied by Dominic, a driver who, while intoxicated, had driven to that place and now was in a drunken stupor in the front seat. Unable to rouse Dominic, Penelope pushed Dominic into the passenger’s side of the front seat and got in on the driver’s side. Penelope released the brake and coasted the car down the street, planning to pull into a parking space that was open.When Penelope attempted to stop the car, the brakes failed to work, and the car crashed into the wall of a home, damaging the home and Dominic’s car and injuring Penelope and Dominic. Subsequent examination of the car disclosed that the brake linings were badly worn. A state statute prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle unless the brakes are capable of stopping the vehicle within specified distances at specified speeds. The brakes on Dominic’s car were incapable of stopping the vehicle within the limits required by the statute. Another state statute makes it a criminal offense to be intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle. The state follows traditional contributory negligence rules.If Dominic asserts a claim against Penelope for his injuries, Dominic will probably: