Affirmative Defense Essay Justin King Case Negligence

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: Jane Smith, Supervising Attorney

FROM: Anne Fox, Paralegal

DATE: October 17, 2011

RE: Anheuser Busch Affirmative Defense

In regards to the case King v. Anheuser Busch, the best defense I find that is plausible for this case is Contributory Negligence. We cannot dispute that the case of beer fell out of our truck and caused direct injury to Mr. King; however, after his surgery Mr. King loosened up the wiring that was designed to set the bones in his face to heal the damage. Had Mr. King not loosened up his head-gear, he may have had a much more complete recovery.

Illinois State Statute 735 ILCS 5/2-1116 (2011) states in sub-section (c) that “The plaintiff shall be barred from recovering damages if the trier of fact finds that the contributory fault on the part of the plaintiff is more than 50% of the proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought.”

The key here is to prove that the plaintiff is at least 50% to blame. Timmerman v Modern Industries, INC. 960 F.2d 692; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 6205 sets the precedent. It is a similar case, where a truck driver struck a person which resulted in a fatality. A wrongful death suit was brought against the defendant by the deceased’s mother. However, because the truck driver was found to not be more than 50% at fault, no judgment was awarded.

Per Mr. King’s own admission, he loosened the wires in his jaw that were designed to heal his face properly. When the doctors attempted to sedate him because he was causing injury to himself, he had himself transferred to another hospital. Certainly, we have some liability due to the loose cases of beer; however, Mr. King’s current long-term status is a result of his own doing and therefore potentially limits or removes our liability in the long run.