Pete and John were hired by the same computer consulting company. They worked a three-hour shift and walked to a pub, where they had several beers. John said he'd drive Pete home. Pete knew John had been drinking but agreed to go with him anyway. The alcohol affected John's driving. He lost control of the car, which crashed through Mr. Britt's fence and garage. Pete was injured. John was not injured. Britt's neighbour, Mr. Watson, called the police. John was charged with the offence of driving while impaired and was found guilty in the criminal proceedings. Given these facts, which of the following is true?
◦ Since Britt was not physically injured, he could not sue.
◦ The principle of vicarious liability is relevant here because John was an employee at the time of the accident. John was charged with an offence; no one could sue him in a civil action for compensation.
◦ Watson, the neighbour, could successfully sue John for negligence.
◦ Pete could sue John for negligence, but if the court held that Pete volunteered to take the risk, Pete would get no award of damages.
◦ One court action is all that is allowed.
John Macadam
John Lennon - Working Class Hero
(B) Urine collection cup; (C) 24-hour urine container.
computer short cuts
A company that makes cell phones has the following cost structure. They have fixed costs of ...
Computer reconstructions of the diversity in neurons that exist across species