Case 5.2: Negligence on page 101
Negligence is defined as “failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not.” (Law.com Legal Dictionary, 2017) “Under the doctrine of unintentional tort, commonly referred to as negligence, a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions.” (Cheeseman, 2013, pp.91) To be a successful case of negligence, it must pass these five tests: “(1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached this duty of care, (3) the plaintiff suffered injury, (4) the defendant’s negligent act caused the plaintiff’s injury and (5) the defendant’s negligent act was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” (Cheeseman, 2013, pp.91) John Black employed Santos Flores and therefore was responsible for duty of care as his employee. It was his responsibility to ensure that unreasonable harm or risk did not occur to him while he was on duty. John was responsible for training employees on the proper procedures needed in handling the bees to maintain safety on the job. By simply handing them protective gear, and not going over the risks involved in the job, John Black did not properly uphold his duty of care to his employees under a reasonable profession standard. Therefore, he committed a breach of the duty of care leading to an injury of his employee that resulted in his death. If John had properly warned and trained Santos on safety procedures while handling the bees, Santos would not have opened his mask and been stung by the bees. In addition, John did not properly train the other employees on how to handle multiple bee stings or someone going into anaphylactic shock. If he had, then another of the employees may have been able to save Santos life. In this case, John is seen to be the proximate cause to Santos’ untimely death due to his lack of professional training and guidance necessary to having knowledge of the job and the safety standards and procedures needed to complete the job. Curtis does not appear to be liable of the act of negligence in failing to warn Santos, as he hired John’s honeybee business. The honeybee business is a professional in the industry that should have known the dangers of dealing with bees and should have trained anyone they employed in how to handle them. Therefore, to answer the question; negligence lay with the owner of the honeybee business that employed Santos and not Curtis the owner of the beehives. References Cheeseman, H. (2013). Business law. (pp. 91). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Law.com Legal Dictionary. (2017). Legal Dictionary - Law.com. [online] Available at: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1314 …show more content…
Strict liability is imposed for abnormally dangerous activities that cause injury or death.” (Cheeseman, 2013, …show more content…
It is equipped with a two trigger safety device, the nail gun must be pressed against the surface in which the user wants the nail placed and the users hand must press the trigger. In testing it was discovered that it can “fire up to nine nails per second if the trigger is continuously depressed and the gun is bounced along the work surface, constantly reactivating the muzzle safety/trigger.” (Cheeseman, 2013, pp.117) Also, it was noted that approximately every 15 firings it might double fire with the original nail size. Due to the fact that Senco desired to get the product out sooner, they did not allow proper time to test the new modifications. Therefore, they were unaware of the chances of it double firing with the longer nails. Without proper testing, Senco was also unable to properly warn users of the double fire potential.
John Lakin was also not very responsible in the usage of the gun. The case study noted that John was standing on his “Tip-toes”, therefore, not allowing himself a firm foot placement necessary to withstand any recoil. This lack of firm footing eventually led to his fall and injury. His extending his reach past the point of allowing property stability definitely put him at risk for injury. In addition, after the fall, John continued to hold the nail gun in his hand with the trigger compressed which allowed the gun to fire when it
Negligence is defined as “failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not.” (Law.com Legal Dictionary, 2017) “Under the doctrine of unintentional tort, commonly referred to as negligence, a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions.” (Cheeseman, 2013, pp.91) To be a successful case of negligence, it must pass these five tests: “(1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached this duty of care, (3) the plaintiff suffered injury, (4) the defendant’s negligent act caused the plaintiff’s injury and (5) the defendant’s negligent act was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” (Cheeseman, 2013, pp.91) John Black employed Santos Flores and therefore was responsible for duty of care as his employee. It was his responsibility to ensure that unreasonable harm or risk did not occur to him while he was on duty. John was responsible for training employees on the proper procedures needed in handling the bees to maintain safety on the job. By simply handing them protective gear, and not going over the risks involved in the job, John Black did not properly uphold his duty of care to his employees under a reasonable profession standard. Therefore, he committed a breach of the duty of care leading to an injury of his employee that resulted in his death. If John had properly warned and trained Santos on safety procedures while handling the bees, Santos would not have opened his mask and been stung by the bees. In addition, John did not properly train the other employees on how to handle multiple bee stings or someone going into anaphylactic shock. If he had, then another of the employees may have been able to save Santos life. In this case, John is seen to be the proximate cause to Santos’ untimely death due to his lack of professional training and guidance necessary to having knowledge of the job and the safety standards and procedures needed to complete the job. Curtis does not appear to be liable of the act of negligence in failing to warn Santos, as he hired John’s honeybee business. The honeybee business is a professional in the industry that should have known the dangers of dealing with bees and should have trained anyone they employed in how to handle them. Therefore, to answer the question; negligence lay with the owner of the honeybee business that employed Santos and not Curtis the owner of the beehives. References Cheeseman, H. (2013). Business law. (pp. 91). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Law.com Legal Dictionary. (2017). Legal Dictionary - Law.com. [online] Available at: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1314 …show more content…
Strict liability is imposed for abnormally dangerous activities that cause injury or death.” (Cheeseman, 2013, …show more content…
It is equipped with a two trigger safety device, the nail gun must be pressed against the surface in which the user wants the nail placed and the users hand must press the trigger. In testing it was discovered that it can “fire up to nine nails per second if the trigger is continuously depressed and the gun is bounced along the work surface, constantly reactivating the muzzle safety/trigger.” (Cheeseman, 2013, pp.117) Also, it was noted that approximately every 15 firings it might double fire with the original nail size. Due to the fact that Senco desired to get the product out sooner, they did not allow proper time to test the new modifications. Therefore, they were unaware of the chances of it double firing with the longer nails. Without proper testing, Senco was also unable to properly warn users of the double fire potential.
John Lakin was also not very responsible in the usage of the gun. The case study noted that John was standing on his “Tip-toes”, therefore, not allowing himself a firm foot placement necessary to withstand any recoil. This lack of firm footing eventually led to his fall and injury. His extending his reach past the point of allowing property stability definitely put him at risk for injury. In addition, after the fall, John continued to hold the nail gun in his hand with the trigger compressed which allowed the gun to fire when it