Big Legal Analysis

BIG LEGAL ANALYSIS 4

BigLegal Analysis

BigLegal Analysis

Theimportance of legal knowledge cannot be understated as far as thecomprehension of one’s rights and entitlements is concerned. Moreoften than not, individuals are unclear on what they should seek andfrom whom. This causes them to pursue unworthy causes or followchannels that eventually end up only draining them financially,emotionally and physically. This is the likely case for Sarah if shedoes not obtain the appropriate legal advice. Sarah has sustainedserious injuries after being thrown through the windshield while Tonywas driving at night. It may be noted that Tony had swerved from theroad so as to avert the possibility of hitting a car that was headingtowards them on the wrong late, only to end up crashing on atelephone pole. The major question is who she should sue and thebasis for the same.

Inmy opinion, it would be most appropriate that she sues Tony, as it hewas the driver of the car that she was in. This may be a toughdecision given that she had called him some minutes earlier askinghim to pick her up, in which case it may be assumed that he wassimply doing her a favor as he was not obligated to do so. Inaddition, it would be imperative that she also includes the otherdriver in the suit as he was a major reason for the occurrence of theaccident.

However,it may be acknowledged that Tony was tipsy. He had spent the betterpart of the evening drinking at a local pub and although he managedto make it back to the workplace in time, he was particularly feelingpretty tipsy. This may be the major reason why the accident occurredin the first place. It has been well acknowledged that alcohol andother substances such as drugs not only reduce the response time fordrivers but also impair the decision-making capabilities (Ross,2010). Essentially, the fact that Tony agreed to take Sarah whileknowing well that he was pretty tipsy, perhaps too tipsy to drivewell should serve as a basis for the suit. Of course, it may becontended that she should have worn her seat belt. However, Tony, asa driver, should have exercised the duty of care that comes with sucha responsibility (Ingram, 2011).

Inaddition, Sarah should also include the other driver in the suit.This would be based on the fact that he was driving on the wrong laneand could have caused a head-on collision, if only Tony had notswerved aside. If he had been driving on the right or appropriateside, there would have been no reason for Tony to swerve. It may alsobe noted that the other driver had not even cared to stop even aftercausing the accident. Of course, the success of this suit would behinged on the capacity of the authorities to apprehend him (Neubauer,2011).

Inconclusion, it is always imperative that one obtains the appropriatelegal advice pertaining to the potential or likely success of aparticular course of action. More often than not, individuals pursuelegal actions that they stand little or no chance of winning. In thecase of Sarah, suing Tony and the other driver would be imperativesince their actions resulted in immense harm on her part.

Reference

Ingram,J.L (2011). CriminalEvidence. NewYork: Routledge.

Neubauer,D. W. (2011).&nbspAmerica`scourts and the criminal justice system.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Ross,D. L (2010). CivilLiability in Criminal Justice.New York: Routledge