Affirmative defense for Anheuser Busch
Preliminary Research for Affirmative Defense
The plaintiff is more than 50% negligent for his own injuries because he was not wearing a helmet therefore comparative negligence applies. To support the claim that the defendant was not wearing a helmet I believe that the seatbelt safety law can be presented to support the claim. Augst 2nd, 1985 the case of Hukill v. DiGregorio the court deemed the supporting claim of seatbelt as inadmissible based on the fact that seatbelts were not mandatory. In present day law not only in Illinois but throughout the entire United States failure to use your seatbelt is considered breaking the law and imposes a fine or citation for motorists who are caught not wearing the seatbelts. Based on the mandatory seatbelt for motorist presentation of such claim will make a strong defense for our client.
The violation of tailgating will also be applied as a defense, if the plaintiff was not following closely behind the truck he could have moved out of the way to avoid being injured. As representatives for the defendant Anheuser Bausch, our client did their duty in following traffic safety law by driving within the posted speed limit. Following too closely behind the truck was a breach of plaintiff’s duty in following the no tailgating law, thereby failing to exercise care for his own safety and that of other motorists. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per house plaintiff stated that he was riding 60 to 65 miles per hour which is well above the speed limit thereby constituting recklessness.
People v. Caballes, November 20, 2003 a vehicle was pulled over by the police for speeding and tailgating. Though the defendant in this case was charged with the possession of drugs it was the tailgating incident that lead to his vehicle being searched. Based on research findings there are many affirmative defenses for our client Anheuser Bausch and based on these findings I believe the most affirmative defense would be Estoppel. The
The plaintiff is more than 50% negligent for his own injuries because he was not wearing a helmet therefore comparative negligence applies. To support the claim that the defendant was not wearing a helmet I believe that the seatbelt safety law can be presented to support the claim. Augst 2nd, 1985 the case of Hukill v. DiGregorio the court deemed the supporting claim of seatbelt as inadmissible based on the fact that seatbelts were not mandatory. In present day law not only in Illinois but throughout the entire United States failure to use your seatbelt is considered breaking the law and imposes a fine or citation for motorists who are caught not wearing the seatbelts. Based on the mandatory seatbelt for motorist presentation of such claim will make a strong defense for our client.
The violation of tailgating will also be applied as a defense, if the plaintiff was not following closely behind the truck he could have moved out of the way to avoid being injured. As representatives for the defendant Anheuser Bausch, our client did their duty in following traffic safety law by driving within the posted speed limit. Following too closely behind the truck was a breach of plaintiff’s duty in following the no tailgating law, thereby failing to exercise care for his own safety and that of other motorists. The posted speed limit is 55 miles per house plaintiff stated that he was riding 60 to 65 miles per hour which is well above the speed limit thereby constituting recklessness.
People v. Caballes, November 20, 2003 a vehicle was pulled over by the police for speeding and tailgating. Though the defendant in this case was charged with the possession of drugs it was the tailgating incident that lead to his vehicle being searched. Based on research findings there are many affirmative defenses for our client Anheuser Bausch and based on these findings I believe the most affirmative defense would be Estoppel. The