Reference no: EM133812947
Fact Pattern
Over the last several years, your drivers have been involved in a small number of incidents which have given rise to liability not for negligence, but for intentional torts.
Question
Describe a hypothetical incident involving a company driver, which involves the intentional torts of battery and assault. (Specifically identify what fact(s) give rise to each of those two torts in your hypothetical.)
Describe two ways in which liability and potential damages for a defendant in such an incident differ from a defendant in an incident involving normal negligence.
Explain the general rule for recovery of damages for emotional harms. Provide one example of how the incident you described above could result in liability for emotional harm.
Fact Pattern 2
Because (presumably) an AV could be programmed to behave in a non-tortious manner, your assumption has been that the use of AVs would decrease your tort exposure for intentional torts (in addition to incidents of negligence). However, while reading about the programming logic of AVs, you became newly interested in what is commonly referred to as "The Trolley Problem." For a short explanation of this thought experiment (including a mention of how it applies to AVs specifically),
It now occurs to you that your AVs will have to make difficult "decisions" related to accident avoidance.
Question
If one of your AVs caused a lesser accident to avoid a greater accident, would the victim of the lesser accident be able to successfully sue you (as the AV's owner) for the intentional tort of battery?
It now occurs to you that your AVs will have to make difficult "decisions" related to accident avoidance.