Ron supervises delivery of flowers for a wholesale distributor of fresh flowers, Flowers. Inc. In order to accommodate one of the company’s best customers, Ron offers to immediately rush a delivery of fresh peonies. All of the delivery trucks are currently out on delivery. Ron directs an employee, Ruth, to use her own vehicle to deliver the flowers.
Ruth carelessly parks her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolls down the hill, knocking down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignite a grass fire. The fire spreads until it reaches a gasoline station one mile away. There is a tanker truck off-loading gasoline to the station’s gas tanks. The fire ignites the gasoline being pumped into the tanks, and one of the tanks explodes, causing part of the station structure to fall on and injure a passing motorist, Jim.
WE WRITE PAPERS FOR STUDENTS
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your project.
Write My Essay For Me| PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW AT writtask.com |
Can Jim recover damages from Ruth; from Flowers’ Inc? Why or why not?
Identify the cause of action. Discuss each element of the cause of action, and relate them to your assessment of whether Jim has a cause of action against Ruth.
Discuss the legal doctrine under which Jim might also recover from Flowers, Inc.
Draft y
SAMPLE SOLUTION
Critical Legal Thinking
The analysis of principle of law states that negligence cannot be used as defense for causing harm to others.
Areas and Principles of Law
Ruth fails to discharge her duties in a proper way especially for the fact that Flower Inc. delivers flowers that are delicate and prone to weather and breaking. There is therefore need to have utmost care when handling them. Driving vehicles while carrying them is one such care that has to be taken and therefore the vehicles had…
Key Facts
Jim can still recover the damages caused by Ruth based on proximate cause of negligence as well as immediate cause on negligence. It is also possible that Jim can recover from the
Analysis
Argument: As a way of ensuring that employees are responsible, it is mandatory that their ill actions/ actions of irresponsibility are left to be handled by themselves other than
Counterargument: There is a common law (respondent superior) that states that an employer is held liable for the actions/ mistakes made by all its employees especially when the very actions
Conclusions
The act of negligence as per the Federal law has to be redefined to take consideration of the law of respondent superior. In any case, solving cases of negligence can easily be solved
Order Original and Plagiarism-free Papers Written from Scratch:
