Principles of Law in Case of Negligence and Duty of Care

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Areas and Principles of Law
Key Facts
Analysis
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Ruth, a worker at Flowers Inc., is tasked by her supervisor to deliver flowers and recklessly parks her car on a steep hill without setting the parking breaks. Her car rolls, breaking a power line, creating sparks igniting grass fire. The fire spreads to a petrol station a mile away with a tanker offloading gasoline and causes an explosion that injures a passing motorist, Jim. The factual scenario presents a lawsuit by Jim to recover damages from Flowers Inc. Analysis of principles of law and critical facts establish that Jim cannot succeed in negligence litigation to recover damages from Flowers Inc.

Areas and Principles of Law

Principles of law pertinent to the case study include quit facit per alium facit per se, a legal maxim in vicarious liability, proximate cause, strict liability, and duty of care negligence. The rationale for quit facit per alium facit per se in vicarious liability is that if one authorizes another person to carry on a particular duty, they are the chief agents of the operation (Huberman, 2021). The duty of care is the responsibility to take reasonable caution and care to avoid causing harm to others (Knobe & Shapiro, 2021).

Key Facts

Ruth was acting on behalf of Flowers Inc. when the accident happened. Ruth leaves the car on a steep hill without using the parking brakes. The car rolled downhill and hit a power line that lit the grass. The fire spreads a mile away before causing an explosion that injures Jim.

Analysis

Argument: First, Since Ruth acted on behalf of her employer during the accident, Flowers Inc. is liable for any tort she committed in the line of duty. Secondly, Ruth could have prevented the car from rolling downhill, making her negligence foreseeable and thus liable for breaching the duty of care (Huberman, 2021). Counterargument: Applying the legal concept of strict liability, the gas station is the proximal cause of Jim’s injury for not putting up necessary measures to mitigate the explosion risk (Knobe & Shapiro, 2021).

Conclusion

Ruth acting on behalf of Flowers Inc., could not foresee the explosion that injured Jim and hence cannot bear the responsibility for the damages on the grounds of proximal cause. Therefore, Jim cannot recover damages from Flowers’ Inc.

References

Huberman, P. (2021). A Theory of Vicarious Liability for Autonomous-machine-caused Harm.Osgoode Hall LJ, 58, 233. Web.

Knobe, J., & Shapiro, S. (2021). Proximate cause explained. The University of Chicago Law Review, 88(1), 165-236. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Principles of Law in Case of Negligence and Duty of Care

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)