Either coding choice would lead to a negligence complaint.

When a car from the other lane comes over and creates the potential for a head-on crash, we have
to decide whether the car turns to the left or to the right or doesn’t turn at all. If the car turns to
left, the collision would be between the other car and the passenger side. The person on the
passenger side might bring lawsuit against the owner of the other car. The owner of the other car
might bring claim against the owner/ manufacturer/ engineer of our car. The owner of the other
car might allege that our side is contributory negligence. Our side has a duty to make sure the
safety of the passengers in our car. A reasonable duty of care in such situation is to brake earlier,
or some other choices to avoid the whole issue. The owner of the other side would try to argue
that the owner of our car does not take reasonable standard of care, so he should be contributory
negligence. Besides, the passenger on our car might also bring a claim against our car owner for
negligence, if the passenger is a friend or guest. The friend would try to say that the coding
choice is not reasonable; the situation would be better had the car turned to right. We have to
prove that in such situation it’s efficient and reasonable to make the car turn to left. For example,
we would have to prove that there is someone (driver) sitting on the driver side, and there is so
many expensive and precise equipment on the driver side, so under cost-benefit analysis turning
to left is not an unreasonable choice. However, if it is the case that there is no one sitting on the
driver side, but there is someone sitting on the passenger side, turning to right is a reasonable
choice, assuming the value of the passenger’s life is much greater the value of the equipment. If
when a car is imminent, but our car does not turn at all, the passenger on our car or the other car
would allege that had our car turned to either side, the collision would be void. In such situation,
if we want to disprove this, we have to show our calculation and simulation. We might disprove
successfully, but this increases the burden on our side. Besides, don’t turn at all would give
others the impression that we have not taken enough reasonable precaution to avoid the collision,
which makes us more difficult to prove our standard of care. Therefore, in general, turning to
right would decrease the likelihood that the passengers bring claims against us and easy to show
our standard of care.

Usually, when the other car is imminent, but to avoid the car, our car has to collude with some
pedestrians, our coding choices have to calculate the value of damages might be in the future.
For example, pedestrians walking alongside are flexible; they have more choices to dodge and
disperse. However, the same numbers of people in the other car don’t have such many choices-
they would all collude with our car. Usually, it’s impossible to figure out how many people in
the car or which side sitting more people in such accident, while pedestrians are somehow
clearer. Thus, from possibility perspective, if the other car is a van, it’s better to drive our car
into pedestrians. If it is a small car, it’s better to not turn at all. However, an important issue here
is that if we choose to collude with the other car anyway regardless how many pedestrians
around (unless there is no pedestrian), we can defend us by contributory negligence of the other
side. If we collude with innocent pedestrians, we would definitely have to compensate the
pedestrians. Hence, in jurisdiction where contributory negligence as a defense, colluding with
pedestrians is not a good choice.

However, our car cannot recognize which jurisdiction it is, so we have to assume that there is no
contributory negligence at all. Either situation would be comparative negligence, and several and
joint liability is allowed. The only concern is to minimize the fault on our side. The numbers of
pedestrians are important. What’s more, the age of the pedestrians and the people in the other car
is also important. Usually, if the victims are strong young people, the compensation to them
would be higher than old people or children. The damages to young people would include
hospital expenses, lost incomes and emotional distress. If the young people die, the damages
would include lost financial support to his family, pain and suffering, loss of consortium. In all,
young people support his family and would work more years than old people, so damages to
young people would be higher. The damages to per kid would be lower than to young people bc.
children reply on their family-they don’t have make money. But, children are vulnerable and less
flexible in a dangerous situation. So, it’s more likely to hurt more children than young people in
a collusion.

1. The damages to NoA Click.

This is a negligence. NoA would argue that to celebrate the acceptance, MM has a duty to make
the whole process safe. However, when doing the coke fueled bender, MM didn’t take a
reasonable standard of care. For example, NoA could argue that the equipment of the bender has
a bad quality, or MM’s skill is bad. A reasonable person would use good-quality equipment to do
the bender. Thus, MM breached his duty of care. NoA could also argue that the cost of taking the
precaution to have a good-quality bender (B) is low, while the probability of having the injury
(P) and the harm caused by the injury (L) is high. Thus, under Hand Formula, MM has breached
his duty of care. Further, NoA could argue that without the incident, his good leg would not be
shot, so it is a counterfactual cause. It’s foreseeable for MM that the bender would hurt someone.
On the other side, MM would try to argue that usually the bender would not shoot people; he has
taken reasonable take to use the bender. Thus, the incident was not foreseeable to him. MM’s
argument is weak bc as an undergraduate student he should have known that coke could hit
people due to its bubble. As long as the incident is foreseeable, though very unlikely, MM should
be liable for the incident. Thus, the procimate cause is established. For the damages, NoA could
sue for hospital expenses, pain and suffering, lost incomes and emotional distress. Due to the
injured leg, NoA could argue that he cannot do his part-time job and he was scared by the
incident. However, if there is no serious emotional harm, the emotional distress would not
established. To defense, MM could say that celebrating with him by coke fueled bender, NoA
has assumed the risk that anyone at the scene might be hit. Besides, MM also could argue that
NoA should have picked a safer position to avoid hitting by the bender. Thus, NoA is
contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. To figure out whethere these defenses are
true, we need more evidence.

2. The damages to Prof. Click.

This is an intentional tort. Prof. Click could argue that this is a battery with transfer of intent.
MM intends to shoot Chakey but hurts prof. click. The result if offensive bc. prof. click’s brain
was damaged permanently. Both Chakey and prof. click didn’t consent to the shooting-they just
walk at that moment. At the beginning, MM intended to shoot Chakey. However, to protect his
son, prof. click jumped in front of Chakey. Although MM didn’t intend to hurt prof. Click, the
intent transferred to him. MM still should be liable for the harmful consequence of his antisocial
act. Therefore, the battery would be established.

Chakey might try to claim NIED. He would argue that he was a bystander at the moment, and
it’s foreseeable that the injury to his father would cause emotional distress to him. However, MM
could strongly argue that pure emotional distress is not allowed for damages. Besides, this is a
transfer of intent, so no NIED to Chakey.

MM would try to defend himself by stating that this is a self-defense. He thought it was NoA and
he was here to revenge, so he shot. The police just left and the police was barred from entering
the campus. It’s reasonable for MM to think that NoA would revenge by himself. Prof. Click
could strongly argue that even though it were NoA to revenge, the degree of force is not
reasonable. There is no clue showing that NoA has gun or any weapon with him. “NoA” was just
walking to him. The threat is not proportional to the use of force. Thus, it’s not a self-defense.

The damages to prof. click would contain all the harm caused by the shooting, whether it is
foreseeable or not. The purpose of this is to deter such kind of behaviors. The damages could
include his lost income as a professor in the rest of his life, pain and suffering, including
recovery from the injury and lost enjoyment as a professor, and other mental trauma caused to
him. When calculating the lost income, we have to consider how many years prof. click can
work, the discount rate (including inflation rate), and his income as a professor. Since he has
been injured on his brain, he might not live as long as before. MM would try to argue that since
prof. click has been compensated by the savings benefit and the insurance, the amount of
damages covered by them should be deducted from the compensation he has to paid. Courts
would not uphold his statement. Under collateral source rule, the amount of compensation MM
has to pay is not affected by other source of damages prof. click has.

3. Damages to Samusmell and Neb.

S can claim battery. Similar to prof. click, The shooting is an intentional act, which causes
serious harm and pain to him. Although MM mistook S as NoA, the harmful consequence has
resulted. Thus, the battery would be established. The damages would include the hospital
expenses, pain and suffering, and emotional ditress. Although the expenses have been covered by
the insurance, MM still has to be liable for the damages. The purpose is to deter him from
harming people again.

Neb could claim IIED. It’s reasonably foreseeable for MM that the shooting would hurt Neb
emotionally since he is nearby. However, MM recklessly disregards the high probability that the
emotional distress would occur to Neb, he shot S, Neb’s brother. The emotional distress is
severe. Neb refused to leave his parents’ home ever again. Thus, IIED is established. To
calculate damages to Neb, it contains pain and suffering and loss of income.

4. Click family against Amy Goofman.

Negligence. The family could argue that the school should take reasonable measure to protect
students’ security otherwise, if they don’t follow federal law. After the campus police knew the
danger of MM, they didn’t do anything to prevent MM from harming people further. For
example, the school could have had the policy that those people who have bad history and
reported by some other students have to receive psychological treatment regularly. They cannot
just leave those people with other students without special treatment. Although those people still
have value to the campus community, from an efficient perspective, the school has to make sure
that the benefit produced by those people is greater than the costs. However, in our case, the
benefit produced by MM was definitely lower than the benefit after this series events.

5. Click family against the booking clerk.

Had the booking clerk figured out the wrong social security number reported by MM, the police
would have caught MM before he entered into the campus under federal law. It’s a simple
mistake; a reasonable booking clerk would not have the mistake, so the booking clerk is also
negligent. The booking clerk would argue that the error of the system is contributory negligence,
which relieves him from liability. The system should have found the mistake.