How to Compare Human-Generated vs AI Memorandum in Legal Research?

Question from Khloe, How to Compare Human-Generated vs AI Memorandum in Legal Research?

Answer from AI:

To:  supervising attorney
From:  associate, Legal Research & Writing I
Date:  September 21, 2025
Re:  Potential negligence claim arising from the motor‑vehicle collision involving John Doe (defendant) and Jane Smith (plaintiff)

I. Question Presented

Whether Jane Smith can recover damages from John Doe for injuries and property loss resulting from a collision in which Doe was traveling 35 mph in a 25‑mph zone and alleges a sudden brake‑failure, and what defenses are available to Doe.

II. Relevant Law

III. Analysis

A. Plaintiff’s Perspective (Jane Smith)

1. Duty & Breach

   • Under the Restatement, Doe owed Smith a duty to operate his vehicle with reasonable care.
   • Exceeding the speed limit (35 mph in a 25‑mph zone) is a per se violation of the Uniform Vehicle Code and is strong evidence of breach.

2. Causation

   • But‑for Doe’s excessive speed, the collision may not have occurred. Even if the brakes failed, a reasonable driver traveling at the posted limit would have had a greater chance to avoid the parked car.
   • The Palsgraf foreseeability test supports a finding that a driver traveling at an unsafe speed creates a foreseeable risk of striking a stationary vehicle.

3. Damages

   • Smith suffered bodily injury and property damage; she may recover medical expenses, lost wages, pain‑and‑suffering, and repair costs.

4. Comparative Fault

   • If Smith contributed (e.g., by parking illegally), her recovery will be reduced proportionally under the applicable state comparative negligence statute.

B. Defendant’s Perspective (John Doe)

1. Mechanical‑Failure Defense

   • Miller permits a defendant to escape liability if he can demonstrate that a sudden, unforeseeable brake failure caused the accident and that he exercised reasonable care in vehicle maintenance.
   • Evidence needed: recent service records, expert testimony on brake condition, and proof that the defect was not due to neglect.

2. Contributory Negligence / Comparative Fault

   • Doe can argue that Smith’s parking location was illegal (e.g., violating local parking ordinances), shifting some fault to her.
   • In a “pure comparative” jurisdiction, any plaintiff fault merely reduces the award; in a “50 % bar” state, Smith would be barred if her fault reaches 50 % or more.

3. Assumption of Risk

   • If Smith was aware of the hazardous speed and still proceeded, Doe could assert that she assumed the risk, though this is rarely successful in motor‑vehicle cases.

4. Mitigation of Damages

   • Doe may contend that Smith failed to seek timely medical treatment or to mitigate property loss, potentially reducing recoverable damages.

IV. Potential Defenses Summary

V. Recommendations

• Further Fact‑Finding – Obtain Doe’s vehicle service logs, accident‑scene photographs, and any traffic‑camera footage.
• Expert Consultation – Retain an automotive engineer to evaluate the brake system.
• Statutory Review – Confirm the precise comparative negligence regime of the state where the accident occurred, as it will dictate the plaintiff’s recoverable percentage.

Because the analysis above is based on general principles and publicly available sources, you should consult a licensed attorney for a tailored strategy and to verify the applicability of the cited authorities to the specific jurisdiction.