Stewart v.Velma I. Rice

The case is significant because it shows the jury’s challenges and the verdict on injuries brought on by negligence. (Shavell 45).

In this instance, the mother of a child injured in a car mishap. The driver was sued after the petitioner, who had permanent head injuries, submitted the lawsuit. David Stewart (the petitioner) was hurt in a collision when the defendant (Velma Rice) made a left onto the street. (Stewart v.Velma I. Rice No. OOSC970). El Paso County’s District Court rendered a decision and rejected post-trial petitions.

Whether the petitioner suffered any damages as a result of the mishap.

The jury concluded that the plaintiff Stewart incurred injuries and damages caused by Rice’s negligence awarding him an amount totaling to $2,925,640.

Rationale: The jury looked at noneconomic losses on the plaintiff, which excluded damages for physical impairment. It also considered total damages incurred by the plaintiff leading to economic losses with the exclusion of physical impairment. In addition, the total amount of damages by the plaintiff due to physical incapacitation was determined and the total for all the three categories was considered.

Case 2

People v. Hall

No. 107P.3d 1073, 1075, 1078

(Colo. App. 2004)

The case involves a former ski racer with training on ski safety who skid down a section of a mountain considered dangerous. It is important since it explains the impact of carless acts of negligence according to (Shavell 45). Defendant lost control and knocked a man leading to his death.

Facts: The defendant was a known ski lift operator and a former ski racer. He was well trained in safety measures during skiing (People v. Hall, 107P.3d 1073, 1075, 1078. After closure of lifts for the day, the defendant skied at a great speed down a dangerous slope. He lost control on moguls flying off a knoll. He then struck the victim who died instantly.

Issue: Whether the people should believe that the defendant was reckless and committed manslaughter when he skied down a dangerous part of a mountain losing control, hitting a victim and killing him.

Outcome: The action of the defendant revealed reckless manslaughter since he disregarded the risks when he skied down the mountain at a dangerous point.

Rationale: The court relied on statutory definitions for recklessness as defined in Colorado law. However, recklessness is contrasted with criminal negligence. The defendant was reckless since he was aware of the dangers and the risk of the action he took. Criminal negligence focuses on failure to perceiving a risk. The court applied the definition of the term recklessness to determine the case.

Case 3

The People of the State of Colorado v. Michael Omar Hall.

No. 03CA0355.

Nov. 18, 2004.

The defendant, Anthony E. McAfee appealed from the judgment of conviction and sentences in which he was found guilty of causing death while driving (Colorado VS Betty Bass, Boulder No. OOCA2379). In 1999, one early morning the defendant’s car with two passengers had a head on collision with a telephone pole killing on passage and injuring the other. The case focuses on negligence and determination of cause as explained by (Cooter, and Porat 250)

Facts: Defendant exited the car immediately after the accident laving the victims and escaped in a cab. The car did not crash because of mechanical failure. Defendant was uncooperative with the police and blood test showed traces of cocaine. This indicated that he had taken the drug within 18 to 24 hours prior to the accident.

Issue: Whether defendant committed vehicular homicide and vehicular assault.

Outcome: Defendant was under influence of cocaine when he was driving and guilty guilty of vehicular homicide and assault.

Rationale: Blood test showed presence of cocaine in blood thus was a reliable evidence of driving under drugs. Affidavits from witnesses indicated that defendant exited the car and escaped the accident scene. The car had no mechanical failure thus the cause of accident was not caused by mechanical faults or external forces. Defendant admitted to friends that he had partied throughout the night prior to the accident. He was the cause of death and injury to the victim. However, the victim’s failure to wear safety belts was an intervening cause of injuries.

Case 4

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. C.

The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado v. Michael Omar Hall

No. 03CA0355.

Nov. 18, 2004.

The defendant faced jury conviction in Delta County District Court for committing vehicular homicide and other related offences due to a fatal accident he caused. The case is relevant since it deals with accidents and damages thus the court must attribute the cause to negligence (Cooter, and Porat 249).

Facts: Defendant was intoxicated and he did not exercise his right to remain silence. Defendant was the one driving the vehicle at the time of accident (The people of the State of Colorado v. Michael Omar Hall No. 03CA0355). Careless driving led to the fatal accident and injuries. The group of 4 friends in the car driven by the defendant had been drinking alcohol.

Issue: Whether defendant was guilty of vehicular homicide, vehicular assault, driving under alcohol influence, and whether careless driving was the main case of injuries.

Outcome: The Jury established that defendant was under influence of alcohol and careless driving lead to the crash of the vehicle causing injuries and death.

Rationale: Interviewing of witnesses reviewed careless driving by defendant. The testimony by the officer showed that defendant was intoxicated during interview due to his attitude. He did not raise objection to the testimonies given. There were no signs of mechanical failure of the vehicle before the accident occurred. Defendant was the one driving the vehicle during the accident. The accident was nit triggered by external forces but his negligence.

References

Colorado v. Betty Bass. No. OOCA2379. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. C. March 25, 2004.

Cooter, Robert, and Ariel Porat. “Disgorgement Damages for Accidents.” The Journal of Legal Studies 44.2 (2015): 249-276.

People v. Hall, No. 107P.3d 1073, 1075, b1078 (Colo. App. 2004)

Stewart v.Velma I. Rice No. OOSC970. May 13, 2002.

Shavell, Steven. “The Judgment Proof Problem.” International Review of Law And Economics 6.1 (1986): 45-58.

The People of the State of Colorado v. Michael Omar HALL. No. 03CA0355. Nov. 18, 2004.