POHL V. COUNTY OF FURNAS 682 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2012) CASE BRIEF

$.POHL V. COUNTY OF FURNAS
682 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2012)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Pohl (P) sued County (D) for negligence over an automobile accident and the court found both parties negligent and apportioned 40% to 60% respectively. Everybody appealed.
FACTS: Pohl (P) at around 9 p.m. that evening, with light snow was falling mistakenly turned west onto Drive 719 which is located a half mile north of Road 719. Drive 719 is a gravel road that does not have a posted speed limit but is subject to a general statutory limit of 50 miles per hour. Unlike Road 719 which continues in a straight line west of Highway 47, Drive 719 has a ninety-degree curve one mile after its intersection with Highway 47. At the time of Pohl's accident, a posted sign was placed at least 110 feet in front of the curve. The sign was two feet square with a yellow background and contained a black arrow with a ninety-degree bend. After turning onto Drive 719, P accelerated to 63 mph, traveling with his high beam headlights on. When P neared the warning sign, he braked too late to prevent the car from missing the curve and going off the road. The car hit an embankment, rolled, and came to rest upside down in a culvert. At daybreak, P managed to drag himself to a nearby farmhouse where the residents called an ambulance. It was later determined that he had a fracture and cord compression in his thoracic spine as well as frostbite in his feet. He underwent a decompression and fusion to treat the spinal injury. P sued D for common law negligence under the district court's diversity jurisdiction. The district court found that D was negligent because of the 'combination of the sign's lack of retroreflectivity and its placement. It also found that this negligence and P's negligence in driving 13 miles over the speed limit were the proximate causes of his accident and injuries. The court allocated 60% of the negligence to D and 40% to P. The district court then calculated that P was entitled to $678,606.14 in damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering, and awarded him $407,163.38 following a reduction for his comparative negligence. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE:


RULE OF LAW:


HOLDING AND DECISION:


LEGAL ANALYSIS:





Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com




© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner

No comments:

Post a Comment