CASE 5.2 Damages for Negligence: Clancy v. Goad
858 N.E.2d 653, Web 2006 Ind. App. Lexis 2576 (2006) Court of Appeals of Indiana
“Although the amount of the award in this case is sizeable, we cannot conclude that it is
unreasonable given the evidence.”
—Vaidik, Judge
Facts
One morning, after working at night, Tim Clancy was driving a Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck on
State Road 231. Clancy fell asleep at the wheel of the truck. Robert and Dianna Goad, husband
and wife, were riding separate motorcycles on the other side of the road. Clancy’s truck crossed
the center line of the road and collided with Dianna’s motorcycle. The collision immediately
severed Dianna’s leg above the knee, and she was thrown from her motorcycle into a water-filled
ditch at the side of the road. Clancy was awakened by the sound of the impact, and the truck
veered into the ditch as well. Robert stopped his motorcycle, ran back to the scene of the
accident, and held Dianna’s head out of the water-filled ditch. Clancy called 911, and when the
paramedics arrived, she was taken to the hospital. Dianna remained in a coma for two weeks.
Her leg had to be amputated. In addition, Dianna suffered from a fractured pelvic bone, a
fractured left elbow, and a lacerated spleen, which had to be removed. Dianna sued Clancy to
recover damages based on his negligence. The jury returned a verdict finding Clancy 100 percent
at fault for the accident and awarded Dianna $10 million in compensatory damages. Clancy
appealed, arguing that the damages were excessive.
Issue
Were the damages awarded to Dianna Goad excessive?
Language of the Court
The record indicates that before the accident, Dianna was an active and athletic person. She was
an avid runner, often jogging three-and-a-half miles a day. She belonged to a health club where
she regularly trained with free weights. Dianna enjoyed rollerblading, hiking, and cross country
skiing. Dianna also worked full-time in a managerial accounting position where she planned to
work until she retired.
The injuries Dianna received in the accident as a result of Clancy’s accident were catastrophic.
She spent two weeks in a coma. Surgeries were performed to medically amputate her leg above
the knee and to set her broken pelvic bones and her broken elbow. Dianna’s spleen could not be
repaired and was inevitably removed, resulting in an increased lifetime risk of infection. Dianna
has endured multiple skin graft procedures. At the time of the trial, Dianna had undergone seven
surgeries, taken more than 6,800 pills, and her medical expenses totaled more than $368,000.
Furthermore, Dianna’s medical expenses and challenges continue and are expected to continue
indefinitely. In addition, Dianna has been fitted with a “C-leg,” a computerized prosthetic leg. A
C-leg needs to be replaced every three to five years at full cost. The trial court took judicial
notice that Dianna’s life expectancy is 35.4 years. We see no tangible indication that the jury acted out of prejudice, passion, or partiality to punish
Clancy. Although the amount of the award in this case is sizeable, we cannot conclude that it is
unreasonable given the evidence.
Decision
The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding Clancy liable for negligence
and upheld the jury verdict awarding Dianna $10 million in damages.
Case Questions
Critical Legal Thinking
Was Clancy liable for negligence in this case? What is negligence?
Ethics
Was it ethical for defendant Clancy to appeal the damage award in this case? Why or why not?
Contemporary Business
Was the award of $10 million to plaintiff Dianna Goad reasonable? Would you have awarded
these damages? Or would you have awarded more or less? Critical Legal Thinking Cases
6.1 Strict Liability Senco Products, Inc. (Senco), manufactures and markets a variety of
pneumatic nail guns, including the SN325 nail gun, which discharges 3.25-inch nails. The SN325
uses special nails designed and sold by Senco. The SN325 will discharge a nail only if two
trigger mechanisms are activated; that is, the user must both squeeze the nail gun’s finger trigger
and press the nail gun’s muzzle against a surface, activating the bottom trigger, or safety. The
SN325 can fire up to nine nails per second if the trigger is continuously depressed and the gun is
bounced along the work surface, constantly reactivating the muzzle safety/trigger.
The evidence disclosed that the SN325 double-fired once in every 15 firings. Senco rushed the
SN325’s production in order to maintain its position in the market, modifying an existing nail
gun model so that the SN325 could shoot longer nails, without engaging in additional testing to
determine whether the use of longer nails in that model would increase the prevalence of doublefire.
John Lakin was using a Senco SN325 nail gun to help build a new home. When attempting to
nail two-by-fours under the eaves of his garage, Lakin stood on tiptoe and raised a two-by-four
over his head. As he held the board in position with his left hand and the nail gun in his right
hand, he pressed the nose of the SN325 up against the board, depressed the safety, and pulled the
finger trigger to fire the nail into the board. The gun fired the first nail and then double-fired, immediately discharging an unintended second nail that struck the first nail. The gun recoiled
violently backward toward Lakin and, with Lakin’s finger still on the trigger, came into contact
with his cheek. That contact activated the safety/trigger, causing the nail gun to fire a third nail.
This third nail went through Lakin’s cheekbone and into his brain.
The nail penetrated the frontal lobe of the right hemisphere of Lakin’s brain, blocked a major
artery, and caused extensive tissue damage. Lakin was unconscious for several days and
ultimately underwent multiple surgeries. He suffers permanent brain damage and is unable to
perceive information from the left hemisphere of the brain. He also suffers partial paralysis of the
left side of his body. Lakin has undergone a radical personality change and is prone to violent
outbursts. He is unable to obtain employment. Lakin’s previously warm and loving relationship
with his wife and four children has been permanently altered. He can no longer live with his
family and instead resides in a supervised group home for brain-injured persons. Lakin and his
wife sued Senco for strict liability based on design defect. Is Senco liable to Lakin for strict
liability based on a design defect in the SN325 that allowed it to double-fire? Lakin v. Senco
Products, Inc., 144 Ore.App. 52, 925 P.2d 107, Web 1996 Ore. App. Lexis 1466 (Court of
Appeals of Oregon) Your responses should be well-rounded and analytical, and should not just provide a
conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice.
For full credit, you need to use the material from the week's lectures, text, and/or
discussions when responding to the questions. It is important that you incorporate the
question into your response (i.e., restate the question in your introduction) and explain
the legal principle(s) or concept(s) from the text that underlies your judgment.
For each question, you should provide at least one reference in APA format (in-text
citations and references as described in detail in the Syllabus). Each answer should be
double-spaced in 12-point font, and your response to each question should be between
300 and 1,000 words in lengtCASE 5.2 Damages for Negligence: Clancy v. Goad

858 N.E.2d 653, Web 2006 Ind. App. Lexis 2576 (2006) Court of Appeals of Indiana
“Although the amount of the award in this case is sizeable, we cannot conclude that it is
unreasonable given the evidence.”
—Vaidik, Judge
Facts
One morning, after working at night, Tim Clancy was driving a Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck on
State Road 231. Clancy fell asleep at the wheel of the truck. Robert and Dianna Goad, husband
and wife, were riding separate motorcycles on the other side of the road. Clancy’s truck crossed
the center line of the road and collided with Dianna’s motorcycle. The collision immediately
severed Dianna’s leg above the knee, and she was thrown from her motorcycle into a water-filled
ditch at the side of the road. Clancy was awakened by the sound of the impact, and the truck
veered into the ditch as well. Robert stopped his motorcycle, ran back to the scene of the
accident, and held Dianna’s head out of the water-filled ditch. Clancy called 911, and when the
paramedics arrived, she was taken to the hospital. Dianna remained in a coma for two weeks.
Her leg had to be amputated. In addition, Dianna suffered from a fractured pelvic bone, a
fractured left elbow, and a lacerated spleen, which had to be removed. Dianna sued Clancy to
recover damages based on his negligence. The jury returned a verdict finding Clancy 100 percent
at fault for the accident and awarded Dianna $10 million in compensatory damages. Clancy
appealed, arguing that the damages were excessive.
Issue
Were the damages awarded to Dianna Goad excessive?
Language of the Court
The record indicates that before the accident, Dianna was an active and athletic person. She was
an avid runner, often jogging three-and-a-half miles a day. She belonged to a health club where
she regularly trained with free weights. Dianna enjoyed rollerblading, hiking, and cross country
skiing. Dianna also worked full-time in a managerial accounting position where she planned to
work until she retired.
The injuries Dianna received in the accident as a result of Clancy’s accident were catastrophic.
She spent two weeks in a coma. Surgeries were performed to medically amputate her leg above
the knee and to set her broken pelvic bones and her broken elbow. Dianna’s spleen could not be
repaired and was inevitably removed, resulting in an increased lifetime risk of infection. Dianna
has endured multiple skin graft procedures. At the time of the trial, Dianna had undergone seven
surgeries, taken more than 6,800 pills, and her medical expenses totaled more than $368,000.
Furthermore, Dianna’s medical expenses and challenges continue and are expected to continue
indefinitely. In addition, Dianna has been fitted with a “C-leg,” a computerized prosthetic leg. A
C-leg needs to be replaced every three to five years at full cost. The trial court took judicial
notice that Dianna’s life expectancy is 35.4 years. We see no tangible indication that the jury acted out of prejudice, passion, or partiality to punish
Clancy. Although the amount of the award in this case is sizeable, we cannot conclude that it is
unreasonable given the evidence.
Decision
The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding Clancy liable for negligence
and upheld the jury verdict awarding Dianna $10 million in damages.
Case Questions
Critical Legal Thinking
Was Clancy liable for negligence in this case? What is negligence?
Ethics
Was it ethical for defendant Clancy to appeal the damage award in this case? Why or why not?
Contemporary Business
Was the award of $10 million to plaintiff Dianna Goad reasonable? Would you have awarded
these damages? Or would you have awarded more or less? Critical Legal Thinking Cases
6.1 Strict Liability Senco Products, Inc. (Senco), manufactures and markets a variety of
pneumatic nail guns, including the SN325 nail gun, which discharges 3.25-inch nails. The SN325
uses special nails designed and sold by Senco. The SN325 will discharge a nail only if two
trigger mechanisms are activated; that is, the user must both squeeze the nail gun’s finger trigger
and press the nail gun’s muzzle against a surface, activating the bottom trigger, or safety. The
SN325 can fire up to nine nails per second if the trigger is continuously depressed and the gun is
bounced along the work surface, constantly reactivating the muzzle safety/trigger.
The evidence disclosed that the SN325 double-fired once in every 15 firings. Senco rushed the
SN325’s production in order to maintain its position in the market, modifying an existing nail
gun model so that the SN325 could shoot longer nails, without engaging in additional testing to
determine whether the use of longer nails in that model would increase the prevalence of doublefire.
John Lakin was using a Senco SN325 nail gun to help build a new home. When attempting to
nail two-by-fours under the eaves of his garage, Lakin stood on tiptoe and raised a two-by-four
over his head. As he held the board in position with his left hand and the nail gun in his right
hand, he pressed the nose of the SN325 up against the board, depressed the safety, and pulled the
finger trigger to fire the nail into the board. The gun fired the first nail and then double-fired, immediately discharging an unintended second nail that struck the first nail. The gun recoiled
violently backward toward Lakin and, with Lakin’s finger still on the trigger, came into contact
with his cheek. That contact activated the safety/trigger, causing the nail gun to fire a third nail.
This third nail went through Lakin’s cheekbone and into his brain.
The nail penetrated the frontal lobe of the right hemisphere of Lakin’s brain, blocked a major
artery, and caused extensive tissue damage. Lakin was unconscious for several days and
ultimately underwent multiple surgeries. He suffers permanent brain damage and is unable to
perceive information from the left hemisphere of the brain. He also suffers partial paralysis of the
left side of his body. Lakin has undergone a radical personality change and is prone to violent
outbursts. He is unable to obtain employment. Lakin’s previously warm and loving relationship
with his wife and four children has been permanently altered. He can no longer live with his
family and instead resides in a supervised group home for brain-injured persons. Lakin and his
wife sued Senco for strict liability based on design defect. Is Senco liable to Lakin for strict
liability based on a design defect in the SN325 that allowed it to double-fire? Lakin v. Senco
Products, Inc., 144 Ore.App. 52, 925 P.2d 107, Web 1996 Ore. App. Lexis 1466 (Court of
Appeals of Oregon) Your responses should be well-rounded and analytical, and should not just provide a
conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice.
For full credit, you need to use the material from the week's lectures, text, and/or
discussions when responding to the questions. It is important that you incorporate the
question into your response (i.e., restate the question in your introduction) and explain
the legal principle(s) or concept(s) from the text that underlies your judgment.
For each question, you should provide at least one reference in APA format (in-text
citations and references as described in detail in the Syllabus). Each answer should be
double-spaced in 12-point font, and your response to each question should be between
300 and 1,000 words in length.

h.

• 1494834726-CASE 5.docx

SuperTutor

(15)

Status NEW Posted 15 May 2017 07:05 AM My Price 20.00

-----------

Attachments

file 1494834739-Solutions file.docx preview (56 words )

S-----------olu-----------tio-----------ns -----------fil-----------e -----------Hel-----------lo -----------Sir-----------/Ma-----------dam----------- T-----------han-----------k y-----------ou -----------for----------- yo-----------ur -----------int-----------ere-----------st -----------and----------- bu-----------yin-----------g m-----------y p-----------ost-----------ed -----------sol-----------uti-----------on.----------- Pl-----------eas-----------e p-----------ing----------- me----------- on----------- ch-----------at -----------I a-----------m o-----------nli-----------ne -----------or -----------inb-----------ox -----------me -----------a m-----------ess-----------age----------- I -----------wil-----------l b-----------e q-----------uic-----------kly----------- on-----------lin-----------e a-----------nd -----------giv-----------e y-----------ou -----------exa-----------ct -----------fil-----------e a-----------nd -----------the----------- sa-----------me -----------fil-----------e i-----------s a-----------lso----------- se-----------nt -----------to -----------you-----------r e-----------mai-----------l t-----------hat----------- is----------- re-----------gis-----------ter-----------ed -----------on�-----------�th-----------is -----------web-----------sit-----------e. ----------- H-----------YPE-----------RLI-----------NK -----------&qu-----------ot;-----------htt-----------p:/-----------/wo-----------rkb-----------ank-----------247-----------.co-----------m/&-----------quo-----------t; -----------\t -----------&qu-----------ot;-----------_bl-----------ank-----------&qu-----------ot;----------- -----------Tha-----------nk -----------you----------- -----------

Not Rated(0)

• Buy Answer