McDuff v. Jetson Ms. Jetson will be found liable to Mr. McDuff under the cause of action of negligence. In order to prove this, Mr. McDuff must provide a prima facie case. This requires him to prove: 1) that a duty was owed to him by Jetson; 2) that she breached this duty; 3) that the breach actually caused the damage, and; 4) he suffered an actual loss or damage (Gateway p. 251).
To prove a duty was owed to, courts in the state of Gould analyze three factors. The first factor is the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. As fellow drivers, Ms. Jetson and Mr. McDuff owe a duty to each other to take caution on the road and avoid reckless behavior. The second factor, and most important in the eyes of the courts, is the defendant’s reasonable foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff. A similar issue was at hand in Fogel v. Get ‘N Go Markets. In that case, the plaintiff crashed through the defendant’s transparent glass store front. The court ruled that it was reasonable for Grab ‘N Go to foresee that these transparent glass panels could cause harm to potential customers. The same ruling should apply when considering Ms. Jetson and Mr. McDuff. Ms. Jetson should have known that driving with flip-flops could be dangerous for her and anyone else sharing the road with her. She could plead ignorance, but it is common knowledge that flip-flops are potentially dangerous to wear while driving. A January 2009 article in Viewspeak Magazine cites a study which supports this assertion. In the study, a thousand drivers were polled, and the results showed that twenty-five percent regularly drive with flip-flops and seventy-five percent find it difficult to drive with them on. This means most drivers are aware of the problem, and some of them choose to disregard it and drive with them anyway. The third factor involves public policy concerns. This is a broad subject, but arguably the most important consideration is the ability to prevent future harm. It is in the people’s best interest to ensure that these types of accidents decrease in the future. Ms. Jetson satisfies all three of these factors, which proves a duty of care existed.
After establishing that a duty was owed, Mr. McDuff must then prove that Ms. Jetson breached that duty. Courts approach this question by measuring three things: 1) The probability of the accident occurring; 2) the magnitude of the injury suffered as a result of the accident, and; 3) the burden placed on the defendant to take proper precautions to avoid the accident (Gateway p.252). As stated before, wearing flip-flops while driving is a potentially dangerous activity. The lack of ankle support causes the footwear to slide off a person’s feet substantially more often than regular shoes. While driving, this could cause one of the sandals to fall off and get lodged under one of the pedals. Therefore, the probability of an accident increases when flip-flops are being worn. The second measure is the magnitude of the injury caused by the accident. This may be Mr. McDuff’s strongest argument. The crash made him a quadriplegic, making it impossible for him to live a normal life or ever work again. The extent of his injuries is long-term and far-reaching. The last measure is the defendant’s burden to take adequate precaution to avert the accident. One extremely unfortunate aspect of this accident is how easily it could have been avoided. The two main alternatives for Ms. Jetson would have been to either change into normal shoes or simply take her flip-flops off and place them on the seat next to her. The burden for her to take acceptable precaution was almost non-existent.
One way to look at whether the defendant has breached his or her duty is to determine whether the combination of the probability and magnitude measures is greater than the burden measurement. In this case, the probability of the accident and the magnitude of the injury far outweigh Ms. Jetson’s burden to take adequate precaution.
The last two requirements to establish a prima facie case should be undisputed. Jetson’s failure to provide a safe environment directly led to Mr. McDuff’s injuries. As previously mentioned, these injuries were substantial. Therefore, Mr. McDuff has met the four requirements to fulfill his obligation of establishing a prima facie case, and Ms. Jetson will be held liable for his injuries under the cause of action of negligence.
McDuff v Sandpiper Footwear After analyzing Sandpiper Footwear’s involvement in the case, the determination is that they will most likely not be held strictly liable for their failure to put a warning on their products. When considering strict liability cases, the courts turn to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. This sections states: “1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate consumer, or to his property, if a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. 2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller (Gateway p. 254-255).” Everything stated above would indicate that Sandpiper Footwear should be held strictly liable except for the very beginning of the section. The issue here is whether the product was in a defective condition unreasonable dangerous to the consumer. A similar situation occurred in Wayans v Landon and Black and Decker. There, a man was using a Black and Decker lawn mower in his yard, when he ran over a small toy. The toy ejected from under the mower at a high velocity and struck a neighbor in the eye. The court ruled that Black and Decker was strictly liable because they had failed to provide a warning for a potentially dangerous product. This would also be Mr. McDuff’s strongest argument. Sandpiper Footwear should have provided a warning stating the dangers of driving while wearing its flip-flops.
However, after reviewing Wayans v Landon and Black and Decker, Chief Justice Brinkley offered a dissenting opinion. His assertion was that strict liability is not absolute liability, and the manufacturer is not responsible for all harm that results from using a product. He went on to say that there is no liability for failure to warn when the user of the product is or already should be aware of the dangers. The plaintiff already knew or should have known the dangers of passing a lawn mower over a small foreign object. When the danger is obvious, the failure to warn is not a defect that renders the product unreasonably dangerous.
This applies to the present case as well. Ms. Jetson should have known not to wear flip-flops while driving. While McDuff’s injuries are horrific, he should only be able to seek damages from Ms. Jetson. Sandpiper Footwear should not be held strictly liable.
Damage Compensation Estimation Based on the McDuff v. Jetson law suit analysis, Ms. Jetson will be found liable to Mr. McDuff under the cause of the action of negligence. Since MR. McDuff suffered a spinal cord injury resulting in his becoming a quadriplegic, as the consequence of negligence, Ms. Jestson will have to pay a reasonable compensation to Mr. McDuff to cover the damage Ms. Jeston caused to Mr. McDuff. Our compensation estimation begins with the analysis of the Consumer Price Index for the years 1999 to 2008 as follow: || Year
Age of Mr. McDuff (years)
Year End CPI Value
Adjusted CPI
|| 1999
43
148.2
1.48
|| 2000
44
152.4
1.52
|| 2001
45
156.6
1.57
|| 2002
46
162.5
1.63
|| 2003
47
166.2
1.66
|| 2004
48
169.8
1.70
|| 2005
49
176.0
1.76
|| 2006
50
183.1
1.83
|| 2007
51
192.6
1.93
|| 2008
52
199.0
1.99
The Consumer Price Index is measurement of price of a basket of goods and services provided by the United Sates Department of Labor. By analyzing the CPI index for a specific location we can determine the cost of living in this particular area. Because we need to know the annual Cost of Living Adjustment to give Mr. McDuff a reasonable compensation for future lost of salaries, we need to interpret the CPI first. As the index shows the price value is constantly growing every year from 1999 to 2008, we conclude the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is positive, which means that the inflation rates during those 10 years could be positive and there could be other factors lead to this positive COLA value. In order to provide more perceptible and accurate Consumer Price Index analysis, we find the Adjusted CPI, and use Excel to create a regression line, and we then use the number of year as the X-axis, and use the Adjusted CPI as the Y-axis to create the scatter of Adjusted CPI, the data and the regression line are as follow:
|| Year (X)
Adjusted CPI (Y)
|| 1999
1.48
|| 2000
1.52
|| 2001
1.57
|| 2002
1.63
|| Year (X)
Adjusted CPI (Y)
|| 2003
1.66
|| 2004
1.70
|| 2005
1.76
|| 2006
1.83
|| Year (X)
Adjusted CPI (Y)
|| 2007
1.93
|| 2008
1.99
|| || || || || ||
As the CPI regression line shows, the correlation of regression is 0.055 indicating the CPI value grows approximately 5.5% every year, during 1999 to 2005, based on the Adjusted CPI value. One major factor that affects the CPI value is the inflation rate, which is also an essential element to predicate the future income of Mr. McDuff. Because inflation rate equals to the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), we need to determine the value of COLA for each of the year, from 1999 to the year 2005, before acquiring the average inflation rate in this particular area. We use the formula of calculating COLA based on the CPI value, COLA year of x= (CPIx - CPI(x-1))/ CPI(x-1) , then we use Excel to create a chart showing the clear value of inflation for every year from 1999 to 2008 as follow:
|| Number
Year
Age of Mr. McDuff
Year End CPI Value
Adjusted CPI
COLA=Inflation Rate
|| 1
1999
43
148.2
1.48
Base Year
|| 2
2000
44
152.4
1.52
2.83%
|| 3
2001
45
156.6
1.57
2.76%
|| 4
2002
46
162.5
1.63
3.77%
|| 5
2003
47
166.2
1.66
2.28%
|| 6
2004
48
169.8
1.70
2.17%
|| 7
2005
49
176.0
1.76
3.65%
|| 8
2006
50
183.1
1.83
4.03%
|| 9
2007
51
192.6
1.93
5.19%
|| 10
2008
52
199.0
1.99
3.32%
|| || || || || Mean
3.33%
We then use the mean of inflation rate, 3.33%, of the year from 1999 to 2005 as a predicted approximate future inflation rate in the next 24 years, until the expectation retire year of Mr. McDuff. In terms of employment contract Mr. McDuff has with the United States Postal Service, the contract projects his wages to rise by 3% per year, we then add the 3% of wages raise rate to the inflation rate to determine the proper rate in which his annual salary shall be increased, which is 6.33%. After acquiring the real increase rate of Mr. McDuff’s wages, and based on the gross salary $48,000 of 2009, we create a chart of the future salary for Mr. McDuff,
|| Year
Age of Mr. McDuff
Salary
|| 2009
53
$48,000.00
|| 2010
54
$51,038.40
|| 2011
55
$54,269.13
|| 2012
56
$57,704.37
|| 2013
57
$61,357.05
|| 2014
58
$65,240.95
|| 2015
59
$69,370.71
|| 2016
60
$73,761.87
|| 2017
61
$78,431.00
|| 2018
62
$83,395.68
|| 2019
63
$88,674.63
|| 2020
64
$94,287.73
|| 2021
65
$100,256.15
We assume the income tax that Mr. McDuff will have to pay in the future is a flat income tax, 25%, which means no matter how much Mr. McDuff will be earning in the next 24 years he will pay 25% tax of his totally income. We need to take the income tax payment out of the totally compensation, since Ms. Hahn has no obligation to give the certain amount of money of future tax to Mr. McDuff.
|| Year
Age
Salary
After Tax
|| 2009
53
$48,000.00
$36,000.00
|| 2010
54
$51,038.40
$38,278.80
|| 2011
55
$54,269.13
$40,701.85
|| 2012
56
$57,704.37
$43,278.28
|| 2013
57
$61,357.05
$46,017.79
|| 2014
58
$65,240.95
$48,930.72
|| 2015
59
$69,370.71
$52,028.03
|| 2016
60
$73,761.87
$55,321.40
|| 2017
61
$78,431.00
$58,823.25
|| 2018
62
$83,395.68
$62,546.76
|| 2019
63
$88,674.63
$66,505.97
|| 2020
64
$94,287.73
$70,715.80
|| 2021
65
$100,256.15
$75,192.11
But the dollar value in this chart is based on the future dollar value, our consulting team need to provide a sound compensation based on present dollar value to Mr. McDuff, or the compensation based on the future dollar value would lead to a unfair overvalued damage compensation for both parties, and Ms. Hahn would have to overpay Mr. McDuff. In order to calculate the present value of Mr. McDuff’s future salary, we need to apply the Accounting theory of Time Value of Money (Weygandt, C-7). Since the present value rate 8% is given, we then need apply this value as the discount rate into the formula of Present Value, PV= FV/ (1+i)n. We then use Excel to create the chart of Present Value to give both parties a clear perceptible explanation of the compensation based on the present value.
|| Number
Year
Age
Salary
Ater tax
Present Value
|| 1
2009
53
$48,000.00
$36,000.00
$ 33,332.33
|| 2
2010
54
$51,038.40
$38,278.80
$ 32,816.90
|| 3
2011
55
$54,269.13
$40,701.85
$ 32,309.44
|| 4
2012
56
$57,704.37
$43,278.28
$ 31,809.82
|| 5
2013
57
$61,357.05
$46,017.79
$ 31,317.93
|| 6
2014
58
$65,240.95
$48,930.72
$ 30,833.65
|| 7
2015
59
$69,370.71
$52,028.03
$ 30,356.86
|| 8
2016
60
$73,761.87
$55,321.40
$ 29,887.43
|| 9
2017
61
$78,431.00
$58,823.25
$ 29,425.27
|| 10
2018
62
$83,395.68
$62,546.76
$ 28,970.25
|| 11
2019
63
$88,674.63
$66,505.97
$ 28,522.27
|| 12
2020
64
$94,287.73
$70,715.80
$ 28,081.22
|| 13
2021
65
$100,256.15
$75,192.11
$ 27,646.98
|| || || || || Total
$395,310.37
Because this accent is happened in 2009 summer, Ms. Hahn should pay half of Mr. McDuff’s 2009’s salary, and the rest should be pied by the United States Postal Service, which is $16,666.17. After all the analysis and calculation our team’s conclusion is that Mr. McDuff should be awarded $378,644.20 as the total compensation, this amount of money represent present value of the total loss of future salary that Mr. McDuff would have earned until the year 2021 which is the expected year of retirement.
Ms. Jetson will be found liable to Mr. McDuff under the cause of action of negligence. In order to prove this, Mr. McDuff must provide a prima facie case. This requires him to prove: 1) that a duty was owed to him by Jetson; 2) that she breached this duty; 3) that the breach actually caused the damage, and; 4) he suffered an actual loss or damage (Gateway p. 251).
To prove a duty was owed to, courts in the state of Gould analyze three factors. The first factor is the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. As fellow drivers, Ms. Jetson and Mr. McDuff owe a duty to each other to take caution on the road and avoid reckless behavior. The second factor, and most important in the eyes of the courts, is the defendant’s reasonable foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff. A similar issue was at hand in Fogel v. Get ‘N Go Markets. In that case, the plaintiff crashed through the defendant’s transparent glass store front. The court ruled that it was reasonable for Grab ‘N Go to foresee that these transparent glass panels could cause harm to potential customers. The same ruling should apply when considering Ms. Jetson and Mr. McDuff. Ms. Jetson should have known that driving with flip-flops could be dangerous for her and anyone else sharing the road with her. She could plead ignorance, but it is common knowledge that flip-flops are potentially dangerous to wear while driving. A January 2009 article in Viewspeak Magazine cites a study which supports this assertion. In the study, a thousand drivers were polled, and the results showed that twenty-five percent regularly drive with flip-flops and seventy-five percent find it difficult to drive with them on. This means most drivers are aware of the problem, and some of them choose to disregard it and drive with them anyway. The third factor involves public policy concerns. This is a broad subject, but arguably the most important consideration is the ability to prevent future harm. It is in the people’s best interest to ensure that these types of accidents decrease in the future. Ms. Jetson satisfies all three of these factors, which proves a duty of care existed.
After establishing that a duty was owed, Mr. McDuff must then prove that Ms. Jetson breached that duty. Courts approach this question by measuring three things: 1) The probability of the accident occurring; 2) the magnitude of the injury suffered as a result of the accident, and; 3) the burden placed on the defendant to take proper precautions to avoid the accident (Gateway p.252). As stated before, wearing flip-flops while driving is a potentially dangerous activity. The lack of ankle support causes the footwear to slide off a person’s feet substantially more often than regular shoes. While driving, this could cause one of the sandals to fall off and get lodged under one of the pedals. Therefore, the probability of an accident increases when flip-flops are being worn. The second measure is the magnitude of the injury caused by the accident. This may be Mr. McDuff’s strongest argument. The crash made him a quadriplegic, making it impossible for him to live a normal life or ever work again. The extent of his injuries is long-term and far-reaching. The last measure is the defendant’s burden to take adequate precaution to avert the accident. One extremely unfortunate aspect of this accident is how easily it could have been avoided. The two main alternatives for Ms. Jetson would have been to either change into normal shoes or simply take her flip-flops off and place them on the seat next to her. The burden for her to take acceptable precaution was almost non-existent.
One way to look at whether the defendant has breached his or her duty is to determine whether the combination of the probability and magnitude measures is greater than the burden measurement. In this case, the probability of the accident and the magnitude of the injury far outweigh Ms. Jetson’s burden to take adequate precaution.
The last two requirements to establish a prima facie case should be undisputed. Jetson’s failure to provide a safe environment directly led to Mr. McDuff’s injuries. As previously mentioned, these injuries were substantial. Therefore, Mr. McDuff has met the four requirements to fulfill his obligation of establishing a prima facie case, and Ms. Jetson will be held liable for his injuries under the cause of action of negligence.
McDuff v Sandpiper Footwear
After analyzing Sandpiper Footwear’s involvement in the case, the determination is that they will most likely not be held strictly liable for their failure to put a warning on their products. When considering strict liability cases, the courts turn to section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. This sections states:
“1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate consumer, or to his property, if
a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although
a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and
b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller (Gateway p. 254-255).”
Everything stated above would indicate that Sandpiper Footwear should be held strictly liable except for the very beginning of the section. The issue here is whether the product was in a defective condition unreasonable dangerous to the consumer. A similar situation occurred in Wayans v Landon and Black and Decker. There, a man was using a Black and Decker lawn mower in his yard, when he ran over a small toy. The toy ejected from under the mower at a high velocity and struck a neighbor in the eye. The court ruled that Black and Decker was strictly liable because they had failed to provide a warning for a potentially dangerous product. This would also be Mr. McDuff’s strongest argument. Sandpiper Footwear should have provided a warning stating the dangers of driving while wearing its flip-flops.
However, after reviewing Wayans v Landon and Black and Decker, Chief Justice Brinkley offered a dissenting opinion. His assertion was that strict liability is not absolute liability, and the manufacturer is not responsible for all harm that results from using a product. He went on to say that there is no liability for failure to warn when the user of the product is or already should be aware of the dangers. The plaintiff already knew or should have known the dangers of passing a lawn mower over a small foreign object. When the danger is obvious, the failure to warn is not a defect that renders the product unreasonably dangerous.
This applies to the present case as well. Ms. Jetson should have known not to wear flip-flops while driving. While McDuff’s injuries are horrific, he should only be able to seek damages from Ms. Jetson. Sandpiper Footwear should not be held strictly liable.
Damage Compensation Estimation
Based on the McDuff v. Jetson law suit analysis, Ms. Jetson will be found liable to Mr. McDuff under the cause of the action of negligence. Since MR. McDuff suffered a spinal cord injury resulting in his becoming a quadriplegic, as the consequence of negligence, Ms. Jestson will have to pay a reasonable compensation to Mr. McDuff to cover the damage Ms. Jeston caused to Mr. McDuff.
Our compensation estimation begins with the analysis of the Consumer Price Index for the years 1999 to 2008 as follow:
|| Year
(years)
The Consumer Price Index is measurement of price of a basket of goods and services provided by the United Sates Department of Labor. By analyzing the CPI index for a specific location we can determine the cost of living in this particular area. Because we need to know the annual Cost of Living Adjustment to give Mr. McDuff a reasonable compensation for future lost of salaries, we need to interpret the CPI first. As the index shows the price value is constantly growing every year from 1999 to 2008, we conclude the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is positive, which means that the inflation rates during those 10 years could be positive and there could be other factors lead to this positive COLA value. In order to provide more perceptible and accurate Consumer Price Index analysis, we find the Adjusted CPI, and use Excel to create a regression line, and we then use the number of year as the X-axis, and use the Adjusted CPI as the Y-axis to create the scatter of Adjusted CPI, the data and the regression line are as follow:
|| Year
(X)
(X)
(X)
|| || ||
As the CPI regression line shows, the correlation of regression is 0.055 indicating the CPI value grows approximately 5.5% every year, during 1999 to 2005, based on the Adjusted CPI value. One major factor that affects the CPI value is the inflation rate, which is also an essential element to predicate the future income of Mr. McDuff.
Because inflation rate equals to the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), we need to determine the value of COLA for each of the year, from 1999 to the year 2005, before acquiring the average inflation rate in this particular area. We use the formula of calculating COLA based on the CPI value, COLA year of x= (CPIx - CPI(x-1))/ CPI(x-1) , then we use Excel to create a chart showing the clear value of inflation for every year from 1999 to 2008 as follow:
|| Number
We then use the mean of inflation rate, 3.33%, of the year from 1999 to 2005 as a predicted approximate future inflation rate in the next 24 years, until the expectation retire year of Mr. McDuff. In terms of employment contract Mr. McDuff has with the United States Postal Service, the contract projects his wages to rise by 3% per year, we then add the 3% of wages raise rate to the inflation rate to determine the proper rate in which his annual salary shall be increased, which is 6.33%.
After acquiring the real increase rate of Mr. McDuff’s wages, and based on the gross salary $48,000 of 2009, we create a chart of the future salary for Mr. McDuff,
|| Year
We assume the income tax that Mr. McDuff will have to pay in the future is a flat income tax, 25%, which means no matter how much Mr. McDuff will be earning in the next 24 years he will pay 25% tax of his totally income. We need to take the income tax payment out of the totally compensation, since Ms. Hahn has no obligation to give the certain amount of money of future tax to Mr. McDuff.
|| Year
But the dollar value in this chart is based on the future dollar value, our consulting team need to provide a sound compensation based on present dollar value to Mr. McDuff, or the compensation based on the future dollar value would lead to a unfair overvalued damage compensation for both parties, and Ms. Hahn would have to overpay Mr. McDuff.
In order to calculate the present value of Mr. McDuff’s future salary, we need to apply the Accounting theory of Time Value of Money (Weygandt, C-7). Since the present value rate 8% is given, we then need apply this value as the discount rate into the formula of Present Value, PV= FV/ (1+i)n. We then use Excel to create the chart of Present Value to give both parties a clear perceptible explanation of the compensation based on the present value.
|| Number
Because this accent is happened in 2009 summer, Ms. Hahn should pay half of Mr. McDuff’s 2009’s salary, and the rest should be pied by the United States Postal Service, which is $16,666.17.
After all the analysis and calculation our team’s conclusion is that Mr. McDuff should be awarded $378,644.20 as the total compensation, this amount of money represent present value of the total loss of future salary that Mr. McDuff would have earned until the year 2021 which is the expected year of retirement.