Sam and John drank beer and watched the Olympics for hours. When John left, he did not feel impaired, but the alcohol in his system affected his driving. He lost control of his car, which crashed through Mr. Mitsu's fence and into Mr. Mitsu's garage. Mitsu's neighbour, Mr. Watson, called the police. John was charged with driving while impaired and was found guilty in the criminal proceedings. Given these facts, which of the following is true?

A) Mr. Watson, the neighbour, could sue John for negligence.
B) Mr. Mitsu could sue John for negligence.
C) If Mr. Mitsu sued John, he would be entitled only to punitive damages.
D) Because John was charged with an offence, Mr. Mitsu cannot sue him in a civil action for compensation. One court action is all that is allowed.
E) Since no one was physically injured, there could be no civil action.

Question

Hallie Brown · Accepted Answer

Final Answer : B, Explanation :  Mr. Mitsu could sue John for negligence because John's actions directly caused damage to Mr. Mitsu's property. Civil actions for negligence are based on the principle that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to cause harm to others, and crashing into someone's property due to impaired driving fits this criterion.

Definitions

Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

Related questions