In response to a number of accidents involving pedestrians in the local business district, City enacted a statute making it illegal for a pedestrian to walk through the City’s central business district anywhere other than on the sidewalk. City also enacted a statute making it illegal for any business to obstruct the sidewalk in front of its establishment. Turner was walking along the sidewalk in the central business district on his way to lunch. Turner discovered that Loader had stacked a pile of boxes in front of his establishment, in such a way that it totally obstructed the sidewalk. Turner stepped into the street to walk around the obstruction of boxes. While in the street, Turner was struck by a taxi cab, negligently driven by Cabbie.
If Turner asserts a claim against Cabbie, Turner’s act of leaving the sidewalk and walking into the street will have which of the following effects?
A. It will bar Turner’s recovery as a matter of law.
B. It will bar Turner’s recovery unless Cabbie saw Turner in time to avoid the impact.
C. It may be considered by the trier of fact on the issue of Cabbie’s liability.
D. It is not relevant in determining the rights of Turner.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
C
Answer C is correct. At issue is the legal effect of Turner’s violation of the statute prohibiting pedestrian traffic except on sidewalks. A violation of statute may constitute negligence per se, and thus be contributory negligence “per se,” if committed by the plaintiff, under these circumstances: (1) The injury caused by the violation must be the type which the statute was intended to prevent, (2) the person injured must be within the class of persons intended to be protected by the statute, and (3) the violation of the statute must be unexcused. Here, the walking only on sidewalk ordinance was manifestly intended to prevent just the type of injury which occurred, to pedestrians such as Turner, and thus without further analysis Turner’s violation would constitute contributory negligence. However, since the sidewalk was obstructed, and Turner was forced to walk into the street to bypass the obstruction, his violation of the statute is arguably excused (i.e., he could not continue to his destination without violating the law). There being no contributory negligence per se, the jury is permitted to consider Turner’s action as it would any other material action by a plaintiff-as relevant evidence bearing upon the reasonableness of his conduct. If the jury concludes that a reasonable person would not have ventured into the street under Turner’s circumstances, then Cabbie may be exonerated.
Answer A is incorrect. Since it appears that Turner’s violation of the walking only on sidewalks ordinance was excused, it has no compulsory legal effect on the issue of whether Turner was contributorily negligent in walking into the street to bypass the boxes which obstructed his path. The jury would be permitted to conclude, based on all the circumstances, that a reasonable person in Turner’s situation would also have walked into the street, and that Turner’s action thus did not contribute to his injuries in any legally cognizable way. Since A states that Turner’s violation of the statute would bar his recovery as a matter of law, it is incorrect.
Answer B is incorrect. Under certain circumstances, even where a plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence, he may still recover from a negligent defendant if the defendant had the “last clear chance” to avoid the injury. The doctrine of last clear chance arises only when the plaintiff has been found to have negligently contributed to his injury, and provides a basis for nevertheless imposing liability on the negligent defendant. Since Turner may or may not have been guilty of contributory negligence (depending upon the jury’s consideration of all the circumstances), it is inaccurate to say that Turner will not recover unless Cabbie had an opportunity to avoid the collision even after Turner placed himself in peril. For this reason, C is a superior answer.
Answer D is incorrect. Turner’s violation of the statute by walking into the street has no mandatory effect on the issue of contributory negligence, as indicated above, but it remains a relevant consideration in assessing Cabbie’s liability to Turner. If the jury concluded that a reasonable person in Turner’s situation would not have taken the risk of walking into the street to bypass the pile of boxes obstructing the sidewalk, then Turner was guilty of contributory negligence, and may be barred from recovery. Thus, D is inaccurate in stating that Turner’s action is not relevant.
C. in a tort action, considered for damges.
C is the best answer. The statutes in this question were enacted to protect the Pedestrian. Since the fact pattern does not distinguish if there is a comparative negligence statute enacted, it is assumed that there is a contributory negligence statute (i.e. common law).
Answer C
C- BC COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS WHAT S PRESUMED ON THE BAR SINCE IT ISN’T ONE OF THE OFFERED ANSWERS- IT IS CORRECT.
answer C. Contributory negligence may bar recovery even if the other actor is negligent. in this case, both the statute and the loader’s conduct will be considered if turner is neglgient. thus the trier of facts may consider turner’s conduct and whether the cabbie has a valid defense.
C is correct.