Business Tort Of Negligence: Dewayne A. Driver For Speedy De ✓ Solved

Business Tort Of Negligencedewayne A Driver For Speedy Delivery Compa

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?

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The case of Fazio v. Speedy Delivery presents a classic example of negligence in a business tort context. To determine whether Fazio can recover damages from Speedy Delivery, it is essential to analyze the legal principles governing negligence and vicarious liability. Conversely, the defense strategy would focus on refuting the elements of negligence and establishing potential defenses such as intervening cause or lack of foreseeability.

Legal Framework for Negligence

Negligence is a tort that requires establishing four key elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. (Prosser & Keeton, 1984). In the context of employer liability, especially in cases involving employee misconduct, the doctrine of respondeat superior often applies, making an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment (Hanks, 2020).

What Fazio Must Prove to Recover Damages

To recover damages from Speedy Delivery, Fazio must demonstrate that:

  1. The company owed him a duty of care as a defendant in a premises or product liability context.
  2. Speedy Delivery breached this duty through negligence, specifically by failing to ensure that Dewayne properly secured the vehicle.
  3. The breach directly caused the chain of events leading to Fazio's injury, establishing causation.
  4. Fazio suffered actual damages, such as physical injuries or economic loss.

Thus, Fazio's burden is to prove that the company's negligence in failing to secure the truck was a proximate cause of his injury, and that the injury was foreseeable as a consequence of that negligence (Restatement (Third) of Torts, 2010).

Establishing Duty of Care

The duty of care owed by the company arises from the duty to ensure a reasonably safe environment when employees are performing their duties. Given that Dewayne was making a delivery in the course of employment, the company had a duty to prevent foreseeable harm resulting from negligent acts (Tort law basics, 2022).

Proving Breach of Duty

The breach is evident as Dewayne left the truck running in neutral and failed to set the parking brake, a clear act of negligence. This omission falls below the standard of reasonable care expected of a competent delivery driver (Smith & Johnson, 2018).

Causation and Foreseeability

Fazio must demonstrate that the company's breach was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. The chain of events—from the truck rolling, igniting a fire, leading to structural collapse, and injury—are reasonably foreseeable consequences of failing to secure the vehicle properly (Davis, 2019).

Damages

Fazio needs to prove injuries such as physical harm, medical expenses, pain and suffering, or lost income resulting from the incident (Legal Information Institute, 2021).

Potential Defense Arguments for Speedy Delivery

As the defendant's attorney, the primary defense would focus on challenging the causation and foreseeability elements. Possible arguments include:

  • The injury was caused by an unforeseeable intervening act, such as the actions of a third party at the construction site, breaking the chain of causation.
  • The company's actions did not directly cause the injury; Dewayne's negligence was an independent act outside the scope of employment or foreseeable risk.
  • Comparative negligence on the part of Fazio or third parties contributed to the injury (Johnson, 2020).

Moreover, emphasizing that Dewayne operated the vehicle in a manner inconsistent with company policies or that the company had established safety protocols could undermine liability.

Conclusion

In negligence claims involving an employer and employee misconduct, the plaintiff must establish duty, breach, causation, and damages. Fazio is likely to succeed if he proves that the company negligently entrusted Dewayne with the vehicle and failed to ensure safety. Conversely, the defense can argue intervening causes, lack of foreseeability, or that the employee's independent actions broke the chain of liability, potentially limiting or nullifying the defendant's responsibility.

References

  • Davis, R. (2019). Foreseeability in tort law: An analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 23(4), 102-118.
  • Hanks, R. (2020). Vicarious liability and employer responsibility. Law and Society Review, 55(2), 215-234.
  • Johnson, L. (2020). Comparative negligence in personal injury cases. Tort Law Journal, 12(3), 45-66.
  • Legal Information Institute. (2021). Overview of negligence. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence
  • Prosser, W. L., & Keeton, W. P. (1984). Torts (5th ed.). West Publishing.
  • Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. (2010). American Law Institute.
  • Smith, J., & Johnson, M. (2018). Employer liability and employee negligence. Journal of Business Law, 30(1), 88-105.
  • Tort law basics. (2022). Understanding duty of care and breach. Legal Education Foundation.
  • Hanks, R. (2020). Vicarious liability and employer responsibility. Law and Society Review, 55(2), 215-234.
  • Davis, R. (2019). Foreseeability in tort law: An analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 23(4), 102-118.

Related Assignments