The jury concluded that the driver of the brown car ran a red light at the intersection of Maple Drive and First Street while proceeding south on Maple Drive. Joan testified that she was driving her blue Toyota and headed west on First Street. She further testified that, as she approached Maple Drive, the light was green and that, as she proceeded through the intersection, a brown car collided with her Toyota. The jury accepted Joan's testimony and concluded that the driver of the brown car negligently caused the collision. Evidence shows that Bob is the owner of the brown car. Based on these facts alone, was Bob negligent?
A)Yes, because Bob is the owner of the vehicle.
B)Yes, because the driver of the brown car was negligent.
C)No, because Joan should not have driven through the intersection at that time.
D)No, because no evidence shows that Bob was the driver of the brown car.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

No, because no evidence shows that Bob was the driver of the brown car. Based on these facts, the conclusion that Bob was negligent cannot be reached because nothing proves that Bob was driving the brown car at the time of the collision. Here, the test-taker must identify the two facts necessary to answer the question: (1) the driver of the brown car ran the red light (and was negligent), and (2) Bob is owner of the brown car. Without additional facts, mere ownership of the brown car does not prove that Bob was driving the brown car, nor does it prove liability under respondeat superior. Thus, on these facts alone, Bob was not negligent.

The Jury Concluded That the Driver of the Brown Car