solution

Adam was driving down a busy street near a college campus when Nathan, who was late for class, ran out from between two parked cars. Adam’s car struck Nathan and severely injured him. Nathan sued for his injuries, claiming that Adam’s negligence caused the injuries when he failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to yield to a pedestrian. These were both items for which Adam was ticketed. Adam claimed the accident was primarily caused by Nathan, who was not in the marked crosswalk just fifty feet away. Nathan was cited for this. Adam also defends that he kept a proper lookout but that any view of Nathan was blocked by the parked vehicle, and Nathan ran into the street without looking. Adam claims his conduct was not the cause of Nathan’s injuries. The court in this case would hear evidence of both parties. If the court determined Adam could have avoided the injuries by keeping a better lookout and yielding to the pedestrian, then Adam would be judged liable and responsible to pay damages for the injuries. However, if the court determined that Nathan’s conduct played such a role in the accident that Adam couldn’t have avoided it, then there would not be a judgment against him. The existing legal standards of rightful and wrongful conduct of the parties are used to resolve the issue: in this case, not only the generally stated statutes on which the tickets issued were based but also the case law involving similar circumstances.