Hookem and Crookem
Law Firm, L.L.C.
____________________________________________________
Date:
May 11, 2012
To: Ambulance Chaser Task Force (J. Pilarski, A.
Cyrus, D. Davis)
From:
Michael J. Hookem, Senior Partner
Subject: Palsgraf v. Trans Florida Railroad
Our client, Annie Palsgraf, underwent plastic surgery last week. Unfortunately, the package of fireworks,
carelessly dropped by a TFR-employed porter, exploded, causing rockets to shoot
from the fallen cardboard box. One such
rocket hit Mrs. Palsgraf right between the eyes, knocking her several feet from
the commuter rail. Her face, nearly
blown off from the rocket's impact, became the least of her worries. Other travelers, alarmed by the explosion,
started pushing and shoving, ignoring our client as she stumbled to the
ground. As more rockets continued firing
from the package, commuters began running for shelter, trampling Mrs. Palsgraf
in the process.
Our
client wishes to sue TFR for twenty million dollars. I believe if we use proximate cause, we will
win this case. Remember, as lawyers, we must have an argument that passes the
laughter test. This particular fact
pattern suggests unforeseeable events.
For that reason, we should employ Cardozo's formula for negligence. In case you've forgotten this is the formula
for negligence:
·
-em and Crook-em Law FirmExistence of Duty
·
Breach
of Duty
·
Causation
and Proximate Cause
·
Injury
To
determine if there was an existence of duty, we must see if the severity of
harm (SH) added to the likely hood of harm (LH) is more than the cost of
precaution (CP). Next, to determine
whether a breach of duty existed, we have to determine what a reasonably
prudent person would have done in the defendant's shoes. Now we need to prove causation and proximate
cause. The standard we use is more
likely than not. So in this case, we
would say, "More likely than not, but for the TFR porter dropping the
package, the rocket would not have flown into Mrs. Palsgraf's face." Second to last, we must prove proximate
cause. If we are using Cardozo, we must
look from the defendant's perspective and use the foresight approach. Then we must characterize the risk before
determining the zone of danger. The risk
of a rocket firing from a fallen box and hitting someone in the face is
moderate during a regular work day at the station. Finally, we determine the zone of danger. We want the incident to be foreseeable and
zone of danger to be remote enough to include the plaintiff. Lastly, we need to say that is clear Mrs.
Palsgraf sustained injuries from the flying rocket.
I
have confidence that there is more than a 50% chance we can win this case. If you have any questions, please email me at
hookem@scam.com
Blog
Question:
Suppose
you are council for TFR. You are working
with three other attorneys. Discuss how
you would organize a rebuttal to Hookem's claims. Look to Chapter 3 and talk about your defense
using strategic planning (subject, purpose, readers, and context). Finally, discuss what, as a group, your
project outcome would be.
*For
extra credit: Above, I have given you
the entire formula for negligence. This
is just how J.P. Morgan or any plaintiff's lawyer would argue before a
jury. See if you can apply the
negligence formula to brief fact pattern I've laid out for you. Let me know if you need extra help. Good luck!
Existence
