With Driver at the wheel, Driver and Passenger motorized into town. Passenger fell asleep during the trip. Driver parked 5 feet from a fire hydrant, next to a bank, in violation of a municipal statute which bans parking within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. Driver went into the bank to make a deposit. Passenger remained asleep. Trucker, who was driving down the street where the bank is located, suddenly swerved the truck to avoid hitting a dog which darted into the street and in front of Trucker's truck. Trucker's truck smashed into Driver's car resulting in a serious injury to Passenger. Had Driver parked anywhere else, Trucker's truck would not have smashed into Driver's car and injured Passenger. Passenger sued Driver in Negligence. Discuss whether Passenger will recover in Negligence Per Se as against Driver. Passenger sued Trucker in Negligence. Discuss whether Passenger will recover as against Trucker in Traditional Negligence. Use all legal rules and concepts to support your analysis. Comment on the postings of your classmates.

There are many ways to prove your case in a trucking accident lawsuit. Many times, your case will turn on whether the truck driver was negligent. This requires that you prove three things:

That the driver had a duty of care toward you

That the driver failed to meet this duty

That the driver’s failure caused your injurie

If the truck driver did not violate a law, you may still be able to prove that he or she was negligent. Here are some examples of driver error that may be considered negligent:

Abrupt movements and turns

Stopping or slowing too quickly

Taking a corner too quickly for the roadway or weather conditions

Explanation:

In ordinary negligence cases, a personal injury plaintiff must prove negligence. He or she will have to show that the defendant's conduct fell below the applicable standard of care and that these actions were the actual and proximate cause of his or her harm. A standard of care is the extent to which a reasonable person would have been prudent in the same set of circumstances that caused the injury. However, in many states, when a defendant violates a safety statute, regulation, or municipal ordinance, and someone else is hurt as a result, an inference of negligence is raised.

The doctrine that permits this inference is "negligence per se," and the doctrine can make it easier for the victim to recover damages. Its application varies from state to state. The key element of any traditional negligence per se action is that the jury no longer has to consider whether the defendant's actions were reasonable or not. The defendant's actions are assumed to be unreasonable if the conduct violates an applicable rule, regulation, or statute. The jury still will determine whether the conduct violated the statute and caused the accident, but the standard of care is assumed.

In most states that follow the doctrine of negligence per se, a plaintiff will usually have to establish that the defendant violated a regulation or law enacted for safety reasons, that the plaintiff belongs to the class that was intended to be protected by the safety regulation or law, and that the violation caused the injury to the plaintiff. The law must be intended to protect the class to which the plaintiff belongs, and it must be intended to guard against the particular type of harm suffered by the plaintiff. When a defendant has been convicted of a crime, such as a DUI, evidence of the conviction may be admissible, and it can make it easier to prove the first prong and apply negligence per se.

giant impact theory - the moon was formed from the collision between earth and another mars-sized body.

colliding planetesimals hypothesis - the moon was formed from the same cloud of material as earth.

capture hypothesis - the moon was locked into orbit by earths gravity as it was passing by it.

accretion hypothesis - the moon was formed from collisions and combining of planetesimals.

i think this is right, if not and you know better let me know.