The two California residents, Don and Polly graduated together from Cal Poly College and they knew each other well. While both driving towards Pomona, they collided. Don was indicating a red light while Polly had a green one as they approached the intersection. As a result, Polly’s car depreciated by 100,000 dollars and she decided to sue Don. The former hired Art to represent her as her lawyer in the court of law. Don also hired his attorney and the hearing started in the U.S Federal court.
The main issue here is whether Don could convince the court that he was falsely accused or not. Similarly, the chief prosecutor or magistrate was supposed to establish whether it was appropriate for the accused to bring past college issues to the court or not. According to the U.S law courts, the release of a falsely sued person is allowed. The release is largely determined by two main elements: just cause and authority. Under the element of just cause, the court looks at it into two categories namely reasonable suspicion and the actual setting where the incident occurred. Secondly, the law prohibits the accused from bringing to the court irrelevant issues apart from the subject matter being heard during the trial.
According to the traffic rules, Don was right because he switched on the red light indicating that Polly was supposed to stop. This clearly shows that Polly was on the wrong. Therefore, the suspicion that he was the cause of the accident that brought about the loss was not reasonable. On the other hand, Don’s attorney was not right when he asked Polly about her participation in Cal Poly Communist club. There was no correlation between the college issue and the traffic accident. In summary, both violated the law and deserved punishment.