Given situation: Person W and P are the two members of Country U navy. Person P was involved in an accident by using Person W’s automobile. Person T was injured and brought this case against person Win State NH superior court, contending that Person W had been reckless in lending the car to Person P because he knew or ought to have known that Person P had no valid driver’s license. Person W tried to dismiss the case on the basis that he had no authority over State NH courts that citing different facts. To discuss: Whether the courts of State NH have jurisdiction.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 10CP

Summary Introduction

Given situation:

Person W and P are the two members of Country U navy. Person P was involved in an accident by using Person W’s automobile. Person T was injured and brought this case against person Win State NH superior court, contending that Person W had been reckless in lending the car to Person P because he knew or ought to have known that Person P had no valid driver’s license.

Person W tried to dismiss the case on the basis that he had no authority over State NH courts that citing different facts.

To discuss: Whether the courts of State NH have jurisdiction.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Mark Phipps was employed as a cashier at a Clark gas station. A customer drove into the station and asked him to pump leaded gasoline into her 1976 Chevrolet, an automobile equipped to receive only unleaded gasoline. The station manager told Phipps to comply with the request, but he refused, believing that his dispensing leaded gasoline into the gas tank was a violation of law. Phipps stated that he was willing to pump unleaded gas into the tank, but the manager immediately fired him. Phipps sued Clark for wrongful termination. Clark contended that it was free to terminate Phipps, an employee at will, for any reason or no reason. Decide. Please answer using the IRAC format. Issue: Call of the Question Rule: Rule of Law to be applied to properly answer the question Analysis: Applying the rule of law to the facts of the problem presented Conclusion: Answer to the Issue

An intruder entered through a window and raped McCutchen in her apartment. MCutchen sued the landlord, Ten Associates, for failure to provide adequate security and failure to warn her of the risk of intrusion through the window. Ten Associates claimed that they had no way of anticipating an intruder. Evidence was introduced that revealed the landlord knew or should have known of a prior rape and numerous intrusions through apartment windows. Does it appear that Ten Associates was negligent in providing for the security of tenants?

Sanderson drives a delivery truck for Jim’s Wholesale Foods. As Sanderson is on his way to a local delivery, he rear-ends Sarah’s car. Sanderson immediately gets out of the delivery truck to assist Sarah. Sanderson tells Sarah that he did not intend to hit her and that he is very sorry. Sarah’s car is totaled, and Sarah is taken to the hospital with extensive injuries. Once Sarah is discharged from the hospital, she visits an attorney to discuss her options. Sarah’s attorney advises her that she can sue: a) Jim’s Wholesale Foods only. b) no one, because the accident was not intentional. c) both Sanderson and Jim’s Wholesale Foods.