Business Law Case Study - Assignment Example

of the of the Business Law Case Study Introduction Issues concerning negligence and claims for damages on account of negligence form quite a sizeable part of our legal system. Such matters fall under the purview of the Common Law and are most usually decided in the Civil Courts, however cases of criminal negligence would more correctly be directed to the Criminal Courts of the land where they occur. The term ‘negligence’ means failure to take proper care in doing something1. Circumstances of the Case In the given scenario, a client has requested a written memo of legal advice in favor of a potential recovery of damages.

The client has suffered severe injuries after an employee of a dynamite blast company (called BLAST) was negligent in failing to prevent him from entering its danger zone. The said company is operating as a subcontractor working in Glenwood Canyon. It was given the subcontract by Mountain Clear Corp., which had in turn won the contract from the State of Colorado. In this case, our client is the Plaintiff and BLAST is the Defendant. BLAST claims that notwithstanding the employee’s error, the numerous large street warning signs were sufficient to prevent harm.

The Legal Point of View In order to win a claim of negligence, four elements must be shown by Plaintiff against Defendant, that of: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) cause and (4) harm. BLAST had a duty to prevent vehicles from entering into a danger zone during its dangerous explosion activities. BLAST breached its duty when its employee fell asleep, allowing the Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter its danger zone. Had the employee performed his job under a reasonable standard of care, the Plaintiff would have been prevented from entering a danger zone, thereby preventing his injury.

The Plaintiff suffered harm resulting from the employee’s negligence in which the foreseeable event of an explosion resulting from BLAST’s activities injured him. The State’s Liability One might well question what the State’s liability is if any, regarding this turn of events. In the given scenario, Blast is a sub-contractor of Mountain Clear Corp. Mountain Clear Corp has been given the contract by the State of Colorado. So the relationship between the State of Colorado and Mountain Clear Corp.

is that of Principal and Agent. In turn the legal and contractual relationship between Mountain Clear and Blast is that of Principal and Agent. But there is no contractual relationship between the State of Colorado and Blast. The State of Colorado would ordinarily have expected Mountain Clear Corp. to carry out the required duties without involving a sub-contractor. So the State of Colorado cannot be held liable for what happened. In a similar case 2[Berkely v.Third Avenue Railway Co.], Minnie Berkely had an accident on a tramline operated by The Forty Second Street Railway Co.

, which was owned by the Third Avenue Railway Co. Though Berkely sued Third Avenue Railway Co, for compensation for personal injury caused, the New York Court of Appeals held that Third Avenue Railway Co. was not liable for the debts of its subsidiary. A similar stance can definitely be adopted here, especially if the State was not aware of the work being sub-contracted by Mountain Clear to Blast. The Contractor’s Liability By the contractor here is meant Mountain Clear Company. It is clear from the above detailed explanation of events that Blast was liable for negligence because its guard had gone to sleep when the Plaintiff approached and went through the danger zone.

Had the guard been awake, he could have definitely have prevented the Plaintiff from crossing over. This was the duty of reasonable care which the guard would have been expected to perform, since ordinarily guards perform these duties3. But as to the question of whether Mountain Clear Co. is liable for the acts and omissions of Blast, it is clear that it is not. Blast had the duty to carry out the blasting activities at the site under its own authority and schedule but within the deadline and scope as directed by Mountain Clear.

The Sub-Contractor’s Liability The sub-contractor in this case scenario is Blast Company. It has already been shown that, notwithstanding the available warning signs, the guard was negligent because he had gone to sleep while on duty. He should have been awake and could have prevented the Plaintiff from crossing over into the danger zone thereby preventing the incident causing injuries. This would come under the scope of his normal duties and also fall under the doctrine of ‘reasonable care’.

Therefore the liability of Blast cannot be ignored and it is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for injuries sustained by him in the danger zone at the blast site. Bibliography Berkely v. Third Avenue Railway Co. 244 NY 602 (1927). Definition of Negligence. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Glannon, Joseph W. (2005): The Law of Torts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers, pp. 73–74.