Top Tutors
The team is composed solely of exceptionally skilled graduate writers, each possessing specialized knowledge in specific subject areas and extensive expertise in academic writing.
Order for this Paper or Similar Assignment Writing Help
Click to fill the order details form in a few minute.
Posted: January 31st, 2022
Business Tort of Negligence
Business Tort of Negligence
Dewayne, a driver for Speedy Delivery Company, leaves the truck’s motor running in neutral and carelessly forgets to set the parking brake while making a delivery. The truck rolls and crashes into a nearby gas station pump, igniting a fire that spreads quickly to a construction site a block away. A burned wall collapses onto a crane, which falls on Fazio, a bystander, and injures him.
What must Fazio show to recover damages from Speedy Delivery?
If you are the attorney for Speedy Delivery what would be your best defense argument?
Your paper should be between 500-750 words, with at least two cited external resources.
Business Tort of Negligence
The business torts, also known as economic torts, are wrongful acts committed against business entities or committed by business entities. The acts should be considered to have been intentional based on negligence or recklessness, resulting in or likely to cause financial loss or injury (Findlaw, 2020). The case provided involves a business tort of negligence, which involves a person failing to carry out standards of conduct or not carefully carrying out an action as a reasonable person would cause harm or loss to another person. In the provided situation, Dewayne, a Speedy Delivery Company, action may have resulted in Fazio’s injuries after a burned wall collapses onto a crane causing it to fall. However, for Fazio to recover damages from Speedy Delivery, he must prove four key elements required to prove negligence.
The first element is the duty of care, which involves proving whether the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care. In this case, Fazio must prove that Dewayne had a duty of care. To prove the duty of care, Fazio could argue that drivers, under the standards of driving, have a duty to control their vehicles to ensure other persons’ safety. Therefore, Dewayne had a duty to ensure the truck was packed safely by applying the emergency brake. Fazio must also prove the element of breach of duty by showing that Dewayne breached the safety duty by not doing what an average person would have done in a similar circumstance (The Carlson Law Firm, 2020). Therefore, Dewayne’s failure to pack the vehicle safely by not applying the emergency brake breached that duty.
Another element that Fazio must prove is causation, whereby Fazio has to show that Dewayne’s breach of duty was the cause of the injuries he suffered. Proving causation also involves foreseeability, which involves proving whether the defendant could have predicted that an action could have resulted in the tort (Valbrune & De Assis, 2019). In this case, Dewayne’s breach of failing to apply the emergency brake caused the damages. The action by Dewayne saw his vehicle roll down the hill, crashing a gas pump causing damages. In consideration of foreseeable, it is clear that when one does not park their vehicle safely, such as not applying emergency brakes, it is foreseeable that the vehicle might start a chain reaction accident. Therefore, Dewayne is liable for all damages caused by the vehicle. The last element that Fazio must prove is the damages. To prove that Dewayne’s negligence caused damages, Fazio could show the damage to the gas pump and the injuries he suffered. Proving the four elements would see Fazio recover damages from Speedy Delivery.
The defense arguments that could be applied against Fazio’s tort claim against Speedy Delivery include providing that by Dewayne operating the track, he acted on behalf of Speedy Delivery behalf. The defense can provide that there is no question of reasonability that proves that at the time of the accident, Dewayne was acting under Speedy Delivery and that the action of Dewayne breached the duty of reasonable care necessary to park the truck. The defense could also argue that Fazio’s injuries were from the crane that fell on him, which could not be negligence on Dewayne. The defense can also argue that the chain of events cannot be connected in terms of foreseeability. The foreseeable could be used in the damage caused on the gas pump, but the collapse of the wall that caused the crane to fall, causing injuries to Lazio, cannot be considered foreseeable, eliminating the connection of Dewayne’s breach of duty to Lazio injuries.
References
Findlaw. (2020). Business Torts. Retrieved from https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-laws-and-regulations/business-torts.html
The Carlson Law Firm. (2020). The Four Elements Of Negligence. Retrieved from https://www.carlsonattorneys.com/news-and-update/four-elements-negligence
Valbrune, M., & De Assis, R. (2019). Business Law I Essentials: Intentional Torts and Negligence. OpenStax, Houston, Texas. https://openstax.org/books/business-law-i-essentials/pages/6-1-intentional-torts-and-negligence
Why Choose our Custom Writing Services
We prioritize delivering top quality work sought by students.
Discounted Pricing
Our writing services uphold the utmost quality standards while remaining budget-friendly for students. Our pricing is not only equitable but also competitive in comparison to other writing services available.
0% similarity Index
Guaranteed Plagiarism-Free Content: We assure you that every product you receive is entirely free from plagiarism. Prior to delivery, we meticulously scan each final draft to ensure its originality and authenticity for our valued customers.
How it works
When you decide to place an order with Dissertation Help, here is what happens:
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.