Closed Memo Project: Court Procedures Class
Issue to be determined:
Is a segway considered to be a dangerous instrumentality?
Scenario:
An elderly woman, Mrs. Gladys Smith, was walking on a sidewalk when she was struck by a
Segway operated by John Doe. The accident caused her to suffer severe injuries, leading to over
$5,000 in medical expenses. Mrs. Smith is considering whether she should file a lawsuit against
Mr. Doe, claiming that the Segway is a dangerous instrumentality and that Mr. Doe should be
held strictly liable for her injuries.
At first, it appeared that Mr. John Doe, the owner of the Segway, was the one responsible
for the accident. However, it was later discovered that it was not Mr. John Doe riding the Segway
at the time of the accident, BUT rather his neighbor, Mr. Alan Grant, who had “borrowed” the
Segway without permission (in reality, Mr. Grant had stolen the Segway and taken it for a
joyride). Further, during the course of the investigation, it has come to light that Mrs. Gladys
Smith saw the Segway approaching and did not seem to get out of the way of the Segway’s
direction.
Objective: Students will draft a closed memorandum to the managing partner, advising whether
Mrs. Smith should pursue a lawsuit and if so, against which defendant(s). The memo will analyze
whether a segway could be considered a dangerous instrumentality under Florida law, and the
likelihood of lawsuit(s) against any and all potential defendant(s)
Project Timeline:
Day 1: Introduction and Research
Introduction to the Scenario:Discuss the facts of the case and the legal question.
Research Assignment:Students will begin researching Florida’s dangerous
instrumentality doctrine and relevant case law/statutes.
Research and Case Law Analysis
Case Law Review:Students will review and summarize key cases related to the dangerous
instrumentality doctrine in Florida.
oKey Cases to Review:
Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 86 So. 629 (Fla.1920) - Establishes the
dangerous instrumentality doctrine for motor vehicles 1
.
Kraemer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 572 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1990) -
Discusses the application of the doctrine 1
.
Aurbach v. Gallina, 753 So. 2d 60 (Fla.2000) - Expands on who can be held liable
under the doctrine 1
.
Statutory Analysis
Statutory Review:Students will analyze relevant Florida statutes.
oKey Statutes to Review:
