Facts: Don Gorney was a “repo man”—someone authorized to find and take cars whose owners are behind on payments, who worked for the defendant, Valley of the Sun. A repossessor is allowed to drive away in such a car, provided he can do it peacefully. One night, he sought a car belonging to Linda Marsalek and Bob Williams. Gorney knew that there had been other, failed efforts to repossess the Marsalek car, including a violent confrontation involving attack dogs. He thought he could do better. Gorney went to the car at 4:00 in the morning. He unscrewed the bulb in an overhead streetlamp. He unlocked the car, setting off its alarm, and quickly hid. The alarm aroused the neighborhood. Williams and a neighbor, Griffith, investigated and concluded it was an attempted theft. They called the police. Gorney watched all of this from his hiding place. When everyone had gone, Gorney entered the car, again setting off the alarm and arousing the neighborhood. Williams and Griffith again emerged, as did another neighbor, dressed in his underwear and carrying a shotgun. They all believed they had caught a thief. Williams shouted for the gun and the neighbor passed it to him, but it went off accidentally and severely injured Griffith. Griffith, the neighbor who was shot sued Valley of Sun on a negligence claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for Valley of Sun, ruling that Valley of the Sun did not owe a duty of reasonable care to Griffith, and Griffith (the neighbor who was shot) appealed.
What is the issue in this case? In other words, what question does the court need to answer to resolve this case? Always phrase your issue as a question.
What is the rule of law in this case? Remember, the rule of law is the legal principle the court relies upon to resolve the issue.
Which specific element of the rule is in question in this case?
Sample Solution
Legal Issue:
Did Valley of Sun, the repossession company, owe a duty of reasonable care to Griffith, the neighbor who was accidentally shot?
This question asks whether the company's actions (or inactions) created a legal obligation to protect Griffith from harm.
Rule of Law:
Duty of Care: In negligence cases, a key principle is the "duty of care." This principle establishes whether a defendant (Valley of Sun) has a legal obligation to act in a reasonably careful way to avoid foreseeable harm to the plaintiff (Griffith).
Full Answer Section
Element in Question:
In this case, the specific element of the "duty of care" rule in question is whether Valley of Sun's actions in repossessing the car (unscrewing the lightbulb, setting off the alarm) were foreseeable in creating a situation that could lead to harm to someone like Griffith.
We are here to help
We have crazy offers
It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.