Facts: Rajesh, who is a student in the university, works part-time as a delivery man for Yum Yum Pizzas. He is working in shift with strict start but the finish times are unspecified. While working he wears the uniform of Yum Yum Pizzas – a T-shirt and a cap. He was provided with special heat keeping panniers for the pizzas to stay hot. He used them on his own bicycle with the help of which he delivered the pizzas. Rajesh was paid a flat fee for every delivery. One evening, caring out his subsequent delivery, Rajesh performs a detour to the nearest LiquorMart store to buy some supplies for the party he intends to attend that evening after his shift is over. He delivers the pizza after picking up the alcohol he bought, and speeds up to make the time because he is late. Unfortunately Rajesh runs into and injures Prudence, a young socialite, who was entertaining herself playing “chicken” with the traffic together with her friends while intoxicated. She ran across Rajesh’s path and was hurt. Rajesh was injured too. He broke his left leg in several places and was not able to go to work and the university for the next two months.
Question one: Is Rajesh entitled to any form of compensation and if he is, from whom?
Cyclists and pedestrians are participators in the traffic and they could be qualified as the most dangerous ones. Usually they do not feel as sterling participants in the traffic and do not consider that they have to obey the traffic rules. As the traffic becomes very intensive from day to day, the municipalities make special pedestrian sidewalks and lanes for the bicyclists. Title 23, Chapter 2, par. 217 of the U. S. Code is dedicated to “bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways”.
The bicyclists are recognized as qualified parties in the traffic. The Texas Transport Code states: “A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle.” (Texas Transport Code, Title 7, Subtitle B, Ch. 551, sec. 551.101) Here is the place to be mentioned that the traffic legislation is developed in every state, based on common principles, adopted in U. S. Code, Title 49, enacted by Pub. L. 95 – 473. Par. 1 on October 17, 1978 and later revised.
As a private person, Rajesh would rely on his insurance, if he has a proper one, as a bicyclist, to get compensation for the injuries resulting from the accident. But in this case he appears as an employee of Yum Yum Pizza at the time of the accident According to Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) employee is every person acting for another under any contract of hire.
Since 1949 all states have enacted a workers’ compensation programs, where the employer’s rights and responsibilities are strictly determined, especially in cases when an employee is injured “in the course of employment” (WCL) In the Workers Compensation Law the employer is liable for the compensations in accidents since he is considered as a provider of instructions for the employee. He instructs him/her how to operate and behave during the fulfillment of his/her work obligations. It has to be admitted that Rajesh made a detour for buying alcohol, but according to the Workers Compensation Law and the court practice, a detour is a deviation from the unambiguous instructions but in such close relation to the initial instructions that the employer still remains liable.
Having in mind the above said, the answer is that Rajesh is entitled to compensations and his employer should be held liable.
Question two: Is Prudence entitled to any form of compensation and if she is – from whom?
It is not known how much Prudence is injured, but there is a very substantial element of the scene of the accident that has to be discussed. Being intoxicated and entertaining herself, playing “chicken” with the traffic, she performs a significant contribution to the accident, based on negligence. Speaking about negligence, we have to describe every type of negligence, recognized by the law.
It is well-known that every state has adopted its own legislation referring traffic, along with different systems of negligence. Only few states like Washington D. C., Alabama, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia have adopted the contributory type of negligence in which if the defendant can manifest that if the plaintiff has even a small one percent contribution to the road accident, the last one is denied the opportunity to be compensated. The rest of the states use the systems of comparative negligence.
The comparative negligence distributes the fault between the litigants. The liability of the defendant may be diminished but not obviated at all. There exist two types of comparative negligence: pure and modified. By the first type of comparative negligence the responsibility is allocated between the parties in accordance to the degree of fault, calculated in percentage. By the second type of comparative negligence responsibility is allocated in correspondence to the percentage of guilt of every party but to a definite level. If the plaintiff goes over the established percentage, he/she is denied the opportunity to be compensated. Li v. Yellow cab Co., 532 P.2d 1226, 13 Cal. 3d 809 (1975) is a case that illustrates the comparative negligence. Both parties showed negligence, driving cars and causing an accident, but the liability of each party was decided in court, using the comparative negligence system.
In this case, estimating the contribution of every of the parties to the accident, Rajesh’s speeding over the limit and Prudence being intoxicated, entertaining herself in a forbidden manner, the Prudence’s percentage of guilt is about 50 percent so she can be entitled for compensation of the other 50 percent. The court has to decide and announce its decision.
Since Rajesh was acting as an employee when the accident happened, Prudence may claim her compensation to Rajesh’s employer according to the doctrine “respondeat superior” in Latin. Translated it means “let the master answer.”
It may be concluded that both parties in the accident neglected the concept of foreseeability of the possibility of harm as a result of their actions, adopted in California Civil Code, section 1714.
Since the facts about the case are limited, unfortunately a more detailed analysis is not possible. It should be good to know the state where the accident happened and to discuss the case according to the state law and court practice.
Reference
California Civil Code, Section 1714, Web
Li v. Yellow Cab Co. 532 P.2d 1226, 13 Cal. 3d809 (1975), California Supreme Court, Web
Pub. L. 95 – 473, par.1, Enacted Title 49 of the U. S. Code, October 17, 1978, Web
Texas Transport Code, Title 7, subtitle B, Ch. 551, Sec. 551.101, Web
U. S. Code, Title 23, Ch. 2, par. 217, Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways, Web
