Business Law - Robert v City Fair Lawsuit - Essay Example

Robert v. Fair Lawsuit 17th October Business Law Memo Brief Overview of the Facts In Robert v. Fair Lawsuit,The plaintiff Mr. Robert went to a gas station at City Fair in Pennsylvania to fill his gas tank and have a cup of coffee. On the fateful day, Mr. Robert was conscious not to arrive late at work. As he went to fill his car tank, the plaintiff realized he did not have enough cash on himself. As such, he decided to budget on $10.00 that he had. He ordered the station attendant to fill his car with gas worth $8.00 while the remaining $2.00 would be used on coffee. Unfortunately, the gas attendant incorrectly filled the car with gas worth $27.39 instead of $8.00. However, the plaintiff did not have any cash on him to settle the extra bill, he offered to leave behind his driving license as collateral until in the evening when he would return to settle the whole bill (Robert v. City Fair Lawsuit ). However, the manager of the gas station, Mr. Tommy, refused the collateral and demanded the plaintiff to suck $19.39 worth of gas from his tank. The plaintiff Mr. Robert tried to refuse claiming it is risky. However, he changed his mind when the manager threatened him with a police arrest. As he was siphoning, the plaintiff inhaled and swallowed some gas. The plaintiff Mr. Robert developed some health complications such as constant eye watering, burning of throat and dizziness. The plaintiff visited ER twice for severe abdominal pain and uncontrollable vomiting. The plaintiff has been forced to miss several days of work, avoided leisure activities such as trail running at Tier Park and playing basketball league. His medical bills are rising while his medical condition will remain as such for long if not for life. Furthermore, his family is unable to put up with the rising hospital bill. Statement of the Issue The plaintiff employs our services in the lawsuit against Tommy and City Fair. The plaintiff believes that Tommy and City Fair should be held responsible for his medical conditions. According to the plaintiff, had the gas attendant followed the instruction careful, he would not have been forced to siphon any gas. His health condition would be normal. Analysis of the Case The plaintiff’s only mistake was forgetting credit card at home. Furthermore, the plaintiff seemed in a hurry and scared of the police. From the look of things, the defendant took advantage of the plaintiff fear of the police and manipulated him. Tommy and City Fair violated business ethics and risked the health of the plaintiff. Their first mistake was to employee incompetent gas attendants who could not follow instructions. As a result, the attendant filled the car with more gas than required. It is correct to argue that the gas attendant caused the misfortune. Secondly, Tommy the manager refused to accept the driving license as collateral until the evening when the plaintiff would have settled the bill. By the fact the plaintiff was willing to leave behind his driving license, is a clear indication that he was willing to take responsibility and settle the matter. However, the defendant refused the security and instead forced the plaintiff to suck the contaminated gas. This gas has risked the health of the plaintiff. Another mistake made by the defendant is allowing contact with risky goods. This has been proved by the doctor who concluded that the gas is responsible for the plaintiff health condition. Apart from the plaintiff, the gas might also affect the health condition of employees working for the station or customers who are forced to suck when they fail to pay. In this case the defendant has a product liability. He is responsible for selling defective goods to customers. Another mistake made by the defendant is forcing the complainant to siphon the gas using inappropriate tools. In the vent that the plaintiff had appropriate siphoning equipments, then his health would have been okay. It is fundamental to acknowledge that consumer laws in Pennsylvania advocate fro protection and compensation (Twomey 23). The defendant is responsible for health complication that resulted from siphoning dangerous gas. According to the law, when a client is harmed by an unsafe product or negligence due to manufacture’s incompetency, then he has a Cause of Action against the person who sold, manufactured or designed the product. Product liability is a law designed to protect customers from scrupulous businesspersons who sale defective and risky goods. Conclusion The defendant is responsible for negligence. This is the absence or failure to carry out ordinary or proper care for the sake of customers. Tommy and City Fair had the responsibility of ensuring their gas is safe. In case they were not able to ensure their gas is safe, they ought to have warned the members on the condition of the gas. However, Tommy and City Fair failed to write warning as stipulated in the law. It is due to this incompetence that the health of plaintiff was jeopardized. Tommy and City Fair ought not to have employed incompetent workers, refused to take the driving license as a security and lastly, Tommy and City Fair should not have forced the plaintiff to siphon risky gas. It is due to their incompetence, negligence and lack of business ethics that they risked the plaintiff health condition. Strict liability law should also be applied to extend the liability of Tommy and City Fair to all individuals including the plaintiff Mr. Robert who were harmed by the gas. The plaintiff Mr. Robert has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that it is the gas he inhaled that has brought health complications. In this scenario, the defendant ought to compensate the plaintiff by settling; the past, present and future health bills that are a direct result of siphoning the gas. Furthermore, the defendant ought to compensate for all the days the plaintiff missed work. In the event the complainant is unable to resume work, the defendant ought to compensate him amount of money that is equivalent to the salary of the number of years he would have worked. The complainant should also be compensated such that he would be able to take care of his family as he has been doing. Works Cited Robert v. City Fair Lawsuit Twomey, David. Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment, Comprehensive Volume. Ohio, OH: Cengage Learning Read More