Paula was a nurse’s aide at a hospital that treated many Alzheimer’s patients. Alzheimer’s sufferers are often violent, and Paula knew that her job involved working with violent, combative patients. Paula also knew about past incidents in which patients attacked aides, but she and other aides received training in handling violent patients. Dave was such a patient. On previous occasions, he had hit hospital employees, and his admitting diagnosis noted his aggressiveness and a high risk that he would cause injury. One day, Paula saw that Dave was being aggressive with another aide who was trying to move him from a chair into bed. Paula entered the room to help because she was afraid Dave would fall. While she was helping, Dave hit Paula several times on the head, causing serious injuries. Dave died shortly thereafter of natural causes. Paula sues Dave’s estate for negligence, and the estate raises the defense of comparative fault. Which of the following statements is most likely correct, assuming that the jurisdiction maintains a pure comparative fault system?
A. If a reasonable person with Paula’s training in dealing with mentally ill patients would not have intervened, Paula’s recovery should be reduced by the doctrine of comparative fault.
B. If a reasonable person without Paula’s training in dealing with mentally ill patients would not have intervened, Paula’s recovery should be reduced by the doctrine of comparative fault.
C. Because it was unreasonable for Paula to approach Dave while he was combative, Paula cannot recover against Dave’s estate.
D. If no harm would have occurred had Paula not approached Dave, Paula cannot recover against Dave’s estate.
Answer:A
Paula was a nurse’s aide at a hospital that treated many Alzheimer’s patients. Alzheimer’s sufferers are often violent, and Paula knew that her job involved working with violent, combative patients. Paula also knew about past incidents in which patients attacked aides, but she and other aides received training in handling violent patients. Dave was such a patient. On previous occasions, he had hit hospital employees, and his admitting diagnosis noted his aggressiveness and a high risk that he would cause injury. One day, Paula saw that Dave was being aggressive with another aide who was trying to move him from a chair into bed. Paula entered the room to help because she was afraid Dave would fall. While she was helping, Dave hit Paula several times on the head, causing serious injuries. Dave died shortly thereafter of natural causes. Paula sues Dave’s estate for negligence, and the estate raises the defense of comparative fault. Which of the following statements is most likely correct, assuming that the jurisdiction maintains a pure comparative fault system?
A. If a reasonable person with Paula’s training in dealing with mentally ill patients would not have intervened, Paula’s recovery should be reduced by the doctrine of comparative fault. B. If a reasonable person without Paula’s training in dealing with mentally ill patients would not have intervened, Paula’s recovery should be reduced by the doctrine of comparative fault. C. Because it was unreasonable for Paula to approach Dave while he was combative, Paula cannot recover against Dave’s estate. D. If no harm would have occurred had Paula not approached Dave, Paula cannot recover against Dave’s estate.