The essay assignment options below concern content from the third part of our course, concerning the doctrine of negligence in the jurisprudence of our civil courts. For this assignment, you are asked to write a formal ESSAY PAPER, on a selected topic of your choice (chosen from a range of designated topics considered by you and your classmates for Discussion Forums that we have conducted in earlier weeks of this Course). You will have the opportunity to augment or intensify your individual research on the selected issue, to elaborate or to embellish your points, and to demonstrate, in formal essay paper style, the reasoning and argumentation that led you to conclusions that you may have posted in one of our class’s prior Discussion Forums.
Answer the following essay assignment options in an essay paper of at least 700 words (1000 recommended).
ESSAY OPTION 4A.
For purposes of this essay option, revisit our Discussion Forum for Week Ten (PRIOR DISCUSSION FORUM SHOWN IN THE DOC BELOW), and consider all the points made therein. Write a formal essay paper addressing the specific questions presented for discussion therein, showing that you have researched the required assignments and studied them, including the following [caselaw] Lynch v. Fisher, 34 So. 2d 513 (La. Ct. App. 1947).pdf. On appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of the case in Lynch v. Fisher, Lynch’s attorneys argued that even if the driver of the vehicle, “no matter how gross his negligence, could not have contemplated the shooting of a third party as a normal and natural result of such negligence,” nonetheless the court of appeal should consider that under the circumstances of the particular case, “the fact that such a driver could not have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred should not prevent him from being liable.” Lynch’s attorneys also argued that even if the act of defendant, Gunter, which caused plaintiff’s injury, was an independent, intervening cause which broke the causal chain flowing from the original negligence of the driver of the truck, there remained a triable issue of fact, properly alleged by the plaintiffs, as to whether the temporary insanity of the defendant Gunter which led to the shooting was directly and naturally caused by the collision, and therefore it should be reserved to a jury to determine whether the proximate cause of the injury was not, in fact, negligent acts attributable to the defendant Wheless and Fisher Co. The Court of Appeal in the decision above (the reading assignment), agreed with these arguments of plaintiff Lynch’s attorneys, and reversed the trial court’s dismissal of their lawsuit. For purposes of this essay option, here are the questions presented that you must address in your essay:
(1) First, state the reasons and grounds why you would concur with or dissent from the Court’s opinion in the decision above, namely, Lynch v. Fisher, 34 So. 2d 513 (La. Ct. App. 1947).pdf, and (2) Then, consider the following question. Suppose, on the trial that ensued, the Wheless and Fisher Co. attorneys tried to prove to the jury that what actually happened was that Mr. Gunter (the shooter) knowing that his wife was hurt pretty badly but (mistakenly) thinking that Mr. Lynch, the man who helped him out of his car was the person who had either blinded him or was the driver of the truck, and that in anger at the injury caused to his wife, Mr. Gunther intentionally shot Mr. Lynch to repay him for what Gunther thought was an injury inflicted upon his wife by defendant Lynch. Suppose further that the jury did not agree with such a theory of the Wheless and Fisher Co. attorneys, so that the Wheless and Fisher Co. appealed again, arguing that the jury could not reasonably have believed otherwise. Should, in that case, the Court of Appeals then agree with Wheless and Fisher, and reverse a jury award to the plaintiff Lynch? For purposes of this Essay Option 4A, you can augment or intensify your individual research, elaborate or to embellish your points, and demonstrate, in formal essay paper style, the reasoning and argumentation that led you to certain conclusions that you may have posted in our Discussion Forum for Week Ten.
