Running head: case discussion Case Discussion: Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents Law is meant to provide justice; to maintain healthy and pleasant state of affairs; to help minimize rates of crime, harm, incorrect dealings and behavior. Law helps in authorizing certain actions that are for the good or unauthorizing certain actions that could be potentially harmful or incorrect. Law operates by framing certain rules or instructions for every action that a human being can conceive. These rules and instruction vary with region, country, and culture.
Law is meant to define or indicate what is ‘ideal. ’ However, application of laws to different situations seems involving a lot of moral and ethical dilemma. As in the case of Hernandez versus Arizona Board of Regents, wherein Hernandez sued Rayner and the fraternity, its officers and national organization that contributed money to perform an action that is otherwise recognized as illegal. This action was to allow young people under age of 21 to consume alcohol and also drive back. This action caused Ryan to drive negligently and cause serious irreparable damage to an auto driver, Hernandez.
Settlement with Hernandez as per the insurance coverage would not be a justifiable proposition considering the seriousness of the incident. Moreover, such incidents can potentially cause much more harm than the present one. In fact, such potential harm was recognized much earlier by the courts that had framed strict criminal laws or statutes to prevent dangerous circumstances resulting from supplying or providing access to dangerous or harmful substances to people that are not mature enough to handle those substances. The fraternity is also responsible for the mishap because they violated the core law, who otherwise had the duty to abide by the law and avoid furnishing alcohol to under-aged people.
In this case, besides criminal suit against Rayner, Hernandez also has the right to file a civil suit against the fraternity for allowing under-aged youth to consume alcohol and perform risky actions such as driving. The seriousness of Hernadez’s physical condition after the accident deserves a civil rights suit against the fraternity for violating the law. In this case, the law is deemed fair because of the serious consequences that have resulted because of violation of an existing law.
The verdict and reasoning given by the court is apt and should be regarded as a lesson for the rest of the citizens of the country and/or world. Such violation not only jeopardizes the victims but also the people involved in the act. The serious consequences of such violation on the victims cannot be quantified in reality because such violation can even result in death of people involved in dangerous incidents such as motor vehicle accidents.
Even after the court taking adequate measures to prevent such incidents, people tend to violate laws and rules. Hence, the court’s ruling in this context is not only a verdict against the violators of law but also an example for the future to prevent such incidents in the future.