BLTC-9e Case Problem with Sample Answer
Chapter 4: Torts and Cyber Torts
4.5 Case Problem with Sample Answer
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., operates an auto plant in Normal, Illinois. In 2003, TNT Logistics Corp. coordinated deliveries of auto parts to the plant and DeKeyser Express, Inc., transported the parts. On January 21, TNT told DeKeyser to transport three pallets of parts from Trelleborg YSH, Inc., to the plant. DeKeyser dispatched its driver Lola Camp. At Trelleborg’s loading dock, Camp noticed that the pallets would fit inside the trailer only if they were stacked. Camp was concerned that the load might shift during transport. DeKeyser dispatcher, Ken Kasprzak, and TNT supervisor, Alan Marten, told her that she would not be liable for any damage. Trelleborg loaded the pallets. Camp drove to TNT’s dock in Normal. When she opened the trailer door, the top pallet slipped. Trying to close the door to prevent its fall, Camp injured her shoulder and arm. She filed a suit against TNT and Trelleborg, claiming negligence. What is their defense? Discuss. [Camp v. TNT Logistics Corp., 553 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2009)]
Sample Answer:
Negligence has four elements—a duty of care, a breach of that duty, an injury, and a causation connection between the breach and the injury. Defenses to a claim of negligence include the lack of one of these elements, as well as assumption of risk, superseding cause, and comparative and contributory negligence. TNT and Trellebog could argue that they did not owe Camp a duty. They might also argue that she assumed any risk. With respect to the duty element, could TNT or Trelleborg have reasonably foreseen that Camp would open the trailer door in a way that would cause her harm? Camp was aware of the risk that the pallets might shift during transport. This included the possibility of a fall when the door was opened and a consequent injury. A reasonable person in her shoes would most likely have tried to avoid this danger. Of the parties to this dispute, Camp was in the best position to prevent her injury. She could have opened the door in a way that did not put her at risk, she could have asked for help at the delivery dock, or she could have let the pallet fall. It would not be fair to hold that a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty to guard against the risk of an injury of which the plaintiff is fully aware. With respect to the assumption of risk, this same reasoning applies. It would not be fair to hold a defendant liable for an injury that results from a plaintiff’s voluntary encounter with a known risk. The court issued a summary judgment in the defendants’ favor. On Camp’s appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed this judgment.