Question

Refresh Radio-Sinus. Dashboard UH - Digital History Mind Tap - Cengage L. VitalSource N NETAS potle Claritio Lime scenario. 4. The length of your response has no bearing on your score. There is no minimum or limit, however, most responses will be between two and three substantial pages. 5. Your assignment must be prepared using the format shown in the Example CLTCA Submission with APA Format. See the Student Resources page for more information about APA styling. 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, Lp 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. 1. Can Jim recover damages from Ruth from Flowers' Inc? Why or why not? 2. 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. 3. Discuss the legal doctrine under which Jim might also recover from Flowers, Inc. Draft your response using the format found in the Example CLTCA Submission with APA Format..

Answer 1

Ans 1)Four facets must be proved for a litigant to recover under a claim for negligence- that the defendant owed a responsibility of care, the defendant violated this duty, the litigant suffered a legitimately recognizable injury, & the defendant’s violation of the responsibility of care brought about the hurt. Ruth did violate the duty of care which she owed towards Jim (& to others in the society) when she parked negligently on the hillock. Jim also obviously suffered an injury. The only remaining issue pertains to causation.

Ans 2) Causation is split up into 2 parts, causation in actual fact & proximate cause. For Jim to recover, he must establish that both types of causation prevailed in this situation. Causation in actual fact is answered by the ‘but for’ test & easily answered here. Ruth’s vehicle set into motion a series of occurrences without which a part of the gas station would not have fallen down. Establishing the proximate cause test will be more tough for Jim. This prevails only when the linkage between an action & an injury is sufficiently strong to justify levying a liability. Negligent parking on a hillock creates a risk that a rational individual can foresee could cause harm. The question in this case is whether the electrical spark, the grassland

fire, tank explosion & part of the gas station falling down are foreseeable risks stemming from an unsound parking job. In this situation, its a question of fact for a judge to ascertain whether there are enough intervening occurrences between Ruth’s parking & Jim’s hurt to defeat Jim’s claim.

Ans 3)The general legal concept which is utilized in lawsuits involving employer liability for its personnel is ‘respondeat superior.’ This implies ‘let the master reply.’ It holds firms liable for the acts of its staff members. However, this doctrine only applies to acts which are within the scope & course of employment. Usually, if an employee caused damage whilst doing work duties / acting on the firm’s behalf, the firm will be held liable for its employee’s actions.

The carelessness was on the part of the employer on account of insufficient know-how about the employee being completely fit for driving a car. It was the responsibility of the employer to check the driving license of Ruth to make sure that she was a trained driver & wouldn’t commit any negligence like inapt parking. Thus, Jim, in this case, could claim damages from the firm & demand for “personal hurt compensation claim” by establishing that the hurt & the damage caused to him is a result of the carelessness of the other party