This memorandum will identify whether or not John Doe is liable for the negligence per Singer, Settling disputes: Conflict resolution in business, families, and the legal system in the year 2018. It will be argued by both the plaintiff and defendants—the relevant state of the law in Washington. The plaintiff argues that the injury is a result of John’s negligence, while the defendant challenges the argument by placing blame on the parents.
It would be necessary to understand what constitutes to establish whether Doe is responsible for the negligence in Washington. According to Washington State Law, negligence is “failure to use ordinary care, which is likely to cause foreseeable harm to others.” Broughel (2019) defines an “ordinary person” as a “reasonably prudent person under the circumstances” (Regulation No. 10256). The required standard care for an ordinary person is determined based on the circumstances. For example, a parent’s duty of care for their child differs from that exercised by a manufacturer toward another manufacturer’s product.
From the plaintiff’s perspective, the child’s injury occurred in John Doe’s swimming pool. He should have maintained the property to prevent injuries and other accidents, especially to the neighbourhood children. Besides, since John was the pool owner, he should have taken precautions and ensured the pool had enough protective barriers installed to prevent accidents (Goldberg & Zipursky, 2020). Secondly, he should have always availed staff members to rescue him in an emergency. The pool owner was also responsible for hiring qualified staff, including lifeguards and other employees capable of taking care of any threats on their property.
Moreover, he would have hired personnel to ensure that the gate was always locked to prevent anyone from accessing the pool without authorized permission. In the case of “attractive nuisance,” the state’s law should address that John Doe is liable for negligence. The jury should also determine the damages to award in this situation since several variables can cause injuries. It means that the case should be contemplated on the parties agreeing on the amount of monetary compensation. It is not necessary for a financial award provided to be there for justice to prevail (Williams, 2019). A jury should decide the amount of payment they feel is essential.
Conversely, according to the defendant’s perspective, he had made it clear that no one should access the pool without adult supervision. In this regard, the injured child was aware of the caution but decided to ignore it and proceed to the collection. Firstly, it is not John’s responsibility to care for other people’s children ware bouts. The parent must know what their children are doing and where they are at any particular time. Secondly, John clarified that no one should access the pool without an adult’s supervision. The parents ought to have known their child could access the cautioned property uninvited and warn him against doing it. Thirdly, the fact that the child accessed the collection uninvited shows the child’s parents’ negligence in their supervisory role.
Then, according to Washington law, John was not liable for the negligent act. Secondly, John owed the parents a duty to warn them of injuries that might occur. Therefore, the injury results from parents’ failure to warn their child against accessing other people’s properties uninvited.
Thirdly, the child knew he was not supposed to access the pool area without adult supervision but proceeded to the premises, resulting in an accident. According to section 388-844 of Washington’s law, parents are responsible for their children’s actions in many situations. When kids are injured, they often do not mean to do it, but as a guardian or parent, one should pay attention to what the child is doing and ensure they are safe at all times (Eyer et al., 2019). If the parents were keen on the child’s activities and noticed that something was going to happen, they could have addressed the situation.
Therefore, the trial court should conclude that John is not liable for the negligent act under Washington law. The trial court should award damages against John concerning the parents’ claims that he should provide reasonable care by advising them how to avoid slipping near the pool’s edge (Singer, 2018). After the appeal, the court should also grant judgment in favour of John Doe by dismissing both claims.
In conclusion, the court should hold that under Washington law, a landowner who knows that a dangerous condition exists on his premises owes important notice to all persons who may be injured on his property. In this case, John had made that to the public, and he acted with reasonable care. Such a ruling, the case should be successful in favour of John Doe for having played his role in cautioning the public against the dangers in his property. The neighbourhood parents failed in their supervisory duties because they had to know what their child was doing and where he was. Therefore, the negligence is on the plaintiffs, and the defendant is not liable for the child’s injury.
References
Broughel, J. (2019). A Snapshot of Washington, DC, Regulation in 2019 (No. 10256).
Eyer, K., Ibrahim, D. M., Lynch, J. W. P., Mayer, L. H., & Mouritsen, S. C. (2019). University of Washington School of Law. Washington Law Review, 94(3).
Goldberg, J. C., & Zipursky, B. C. (2020). The Oxford introductions to U.S. law: Torts. Oxford University Press.
Singer, L. R. (2018). Settling disputes: Conflict resolution in business, families, and the legal system. Routledge.
Williams, B. (2019). Bad Foundation: Washington’s Lack of Homeowner Rights. Mitchell Hamline LJ Pub. Poly & Prac., 40, 155.
write