Sunday, January 11, 2009

Don't tort and drive

Let me give you some free legal advice. If you need to avoid a speeding ticket, employ the Killer Bees defense from Tommy Boy. As Cordas v. Peerless will show, this ridiculous little stunt actually has some legal precedent. Specifically, the normal standard of care does not apply in the event of an emergency.

I'm kidding. Please do not go Killer Bees on a police officer. If you really must avoid a ticket, try my Safari Defense. That's where you pretend you are on safari and the police are hungry lions. Shut off your engine, roll up the windows, lock the doors, and DON'T MAKE EYE CONTACT! Eventually, the cop will get bored and just wander away.

A few quick items before we look at Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co.

Consortium
We've already established that when a person is injured, they can sue for damages under tort law. It turns out that their partners (spouse, relatives, business partners, etc) may also seek to recover damages under the idea of consortium. For example, let's pretend I'm a victim of libel and as a result lose my job. Among other things, I can sue for lost wages. My wife can sue in consortium because I've been an awful husband ever since I got laid off (verbally abusive, lazy, whatever). The more injuries we have, the more money we get.

Vicarious Liability
As opposed to direct liability, vicarious liability is "the responsibility of the superior for the acts of the subordinate."

There are at least two advantages to suing a company instead of it's employee. First, a low-level employee doing their job is a sympathetic figure. An evil corporation is not. Second, the company should have more money than it's employee.

Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co., 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1941)

Facts
A cab driver was held at gunpoint by a criminal, who was fleeing from a robbery. The robber commanded the cabbie to drive. The driver proceeded, and at the first opportunity jumped from the cab. After the robber jumped from the cab, it ran onto the sidewalk and struck a mother and her two children. They survived with some injuries. The family (including the husband) sued Peerless Transportation in consortium, on the grounds of vicarious liability.

Question
1. Is the driver (and thus the cab company) liable for injuries?

Holding
1. No

Reasoning
1. Under normal circumstances, the driver's actions would fail to meet the required standard of care. However, the ordinary standard of care does not apply when an individual is faced with an emergency that is not of their own doing. Under the circumstances, the driver's actions were congruent with those of the fictional "ordinary man of reasonable prudence."

No comments: