Business Law - brief case using FIRAC method. and more - Essay Example

Therefore, a person is considered liable for negligence if he or she has departed or violates the conduct which is expected of a “reasonably prudent person” who is acting under the same circumstance (Buswell 41). In the case of Duncan vs. Union Pacific, the court sought to establish whether there was negligence on the part of the Union Pacific, and particular how its train was operated. The court found out that there was no evidence to show that the train was operated negligently, and that its warning bells, whistles, and headlight were well activated before approaching the crossing.

Paul Kleinman, the operator of the train had seen the car approaching but he believed it would stop. However, the car did not stop and it was too late for him to stop the train and avoid hitting the car. Besides, the Utah Department of Transportation was satisfied that the railroad crossing had met all the required safety standards; the court was thus satisfied that the state of the crossing was good and it could not be attributed to the accident. Even though the court concurred that the railroad crossing is hazardous, its simple existence was not in itself a breach of duty of care (a key element in establishing negligence). John O. Hairstons died as a result of a collision on the South Fork River Bridge on 17 April 1978.

Hairston negotiated the purchase of a 1978 Lincoln Continental automobile on Friday, 14 April 1978, at Haygood Lincoln Mercury, Inc. in Lowell, North Carolina. Apparently, as he waited, the service department employees at Haygoods replaced the standard wheels with turbine wheels from another automobile. After travelling for approximately 3.5 miles following conclusion of transaction at Haygood, the left rear wheel of the new Lincoln car came off. Thereafter, he was hit by a G.M.C truck operated by Robert Alexander and he died.

Alexander Tank argued that Haygood’s negligence was the proximate cause of Hairston’s death. The rule of law