contestada

A driver was operating his vehicle along a residential street at the posted speed limit when he saw a ball roll across the street. The driver did not slow down because the ball cleared his path before he reached it. A few seconds later, a child darted out into the street after the ball without looking for cars. The driver's car struck the child, and the child was injured. The child's parents brought an action on the child's behalf against the driver in a jurisdiction that follows traditional contributory negligence rules. At trial, the above facts were established. At the close of the evidence, the driver moved for a directed verdict. What should the court do

Respuesta :

avanel0493

Deny the driver's motion because it will be up to the jury to determine whether he should have slowed down to below the speed limit. A jury could find that a reasonable prudent person under similar circumstances (watching the ball roll into the street) would slow down to avoid any foreseeable risk of hitting a child darting into the street.

At the trail for the injured child, as the driver moved for a directed verdict; the court will "deny the driver's motion".

What is Direct Verdict?

A trial judge's decision to direct a jury's judgement is made after concluding that there is insufficient legal evidence to allow a fair jury to reach a different verdict. A directed verdict may be granted by the trial court spontaneously or in response to a motion made by either party.

The direct verdict is asked by-

  • In a criminal trial, the defense attorney for the defendant may move to have the charges dropped on the grounds that the prosecution has not made its case.
  • In effect, in both kinds of cases, the lawyer asks the judge to direct a verdict for the defendant.
  • The judge will either grant or deny the motion.

Reason for the denial of drivers' verdict is-

  • As for the given case of child accident, the court will deny the driver's motion because because the jury will decide whether or not he ought to have slowed down to the legal pace.
  • A jury could decide that a reasonable, cautious individual would have slowed down in the same situation (seeing the ball roll into the street) to reduce the likelihood of running into a youngster who was darting into the roadway.

To know about the authenticity of evidence, here

https://brainly.com/question/23323608

#SPJ4

Otras preguntas