People v. Kibbe Coursework - 275 Words

People v. Kibbe (Coursework Sample) Content: NameCourseProfessorDatePeople v. Kibbe(1974)FactsThe defendants, Barry and Roy Krall, met the victim, George Stafford, during the winter in a bar. In the course of their meeting, the defendants realized that Stafford was intoxicated and had lots of money. Unluckily, Stafford asked the defendants who had already put a plan of robbing him, to give him a ride. They boarded Kibbeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s car and drove off towards Canandaigua. While Krall was driving, Kibbe was busy roughing Stafford up. Kibbe slapped Stafford severally with the aim of getting all the money he had. In order to make sure he had no additional money with him, Kibbe asked Stafford to take his shoes off and lower his trousers. When they were contended that Stafford had no more money, Kibbe forcefully chucked Stafford out of the car (Singer and Fond 583).Stafford was chucked out landing on the shoulder of the bucolic two-lane highway with his shirt still rolled up to his chest and trousers still lowered to h is ankles. Stafford had no outer clothing nor shoes. Before Kibbe and Krall left, they left his jacket and shoes on the highwayà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s shoulder. Stafford normally wore glasses but after being mishandled by Kibbe he left them in Kibbeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s car. The defendants then drove off either purposely or inadvertently without handing the glasses to Stafford. Coincidentally, at that time, 10:00 pm, Michael W. Blake was driving at a rational speed on the same highway. He saw Stafford standing in the middle of the road, with hands in the air. However, he could not stop the car in time, he knocked down Stafford, leading to his death (Singer and Fond 583).IssueWere the defendant legally responsible for Staffordà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s death? HoldingYesReasoningThe actions of Kibbe and Krall of leaving a helpless intoxicated person without his eye glasses in a situation where he could defend himself from the rudiments are the proximal cause of the Stafford death. It was rationally foreseeable that leaving the victim, who was blind since he did not wear his eyeglasses, and drunk, in the middle of the highway could get knocked down by a car.On the part of Blake, he was driving on low beam since two cars were approaching and the highway had no lighting. As a result, he could not control the car when he saw Stafford. Blake operated the car in a reasonable way, he was not driving at high speeds and did not expect anyone on the road since there were no houses at the point.The court argued in support of the ruling that the defendantsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ acts coupled with Blakesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬ operation of his automobile resulted in the death of a helpless drunk individual. As the court asserted whenever distinct acts of negligence come together leading to a single injury, each party is legally responsible the overall outcome.As a result, the court ruled that the actions of the defendants do not have to be direct cause of the death of the victim for them to be held liable. It also noted that sin ce the actions of the defendants initiate a sequence of events resulting in the death ...