More thought on negligence

In the event that the police report would not specify fault, or it didn't say whether the driver was drunk, I would claim under negligence and raise doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. That latin word means "the thing speaks itself". There are three elements to prove:

1. The event would not normally happen without negligence. I mean, come on, often a car hitting into a house with driver's negligence?

2. The instrument was in the actor's exclusive control. Isn't it so obvious? The guy was driving alone, right?

3. The victim did not contribute. It's nonsense. None of us would erect a sign in front our houses in anticipation of a car running into them, right?

You don't even need a lawyer. You can win by yourself. Even if the guy can raise a defense such as private necessity that he was not blameworthy, he still needs pay for the damage because private necessity is not a complete defense.

所有跟帖： 

• 回複：More thought on negligence -謝過了- ♂ (630 bytes) () 11/21/2005 postreply 08:43:57