Canadian Business Law Mini Case Analysis
The Law of tort covers litigations involving property damage and injury. Injury, in this case, consists of both physical and emotional harm (The University of New Mexico, 2020). The Rusholmes hence have a tort type of case in which an unintentional action resulted in property damage. As a result, the family has sued both the contract company and the product manufacturer.
The Rusholmes vs. Saunders and Watts Ltd
The case against the company is legally viable under unintentional tort. As such, the case can be argued under negligence. For a negligence case to be successful, it has to fulfill specific parameters. These include the duty of care, reasonable person, foreseeability, causation, and burden of proof (Schroeder, n.d.). The company had a duty of care responsibility as a service provider. The family had also left instructions concerning the opening of windows after job completion, which the company ignored. The reasonable person criterion is also qualified by the company having adults without disability carrying out the job. The sealer used had clear instructions concerning aeration and elimination of sparking devices. Being aware of the instructions and not implementing translates to being aware of possible consequences. The breach of guidelines ultimately led to the explosion; hence causation criterion is equally fulfilled.
Negligence caused the explosion that resulted in property damage. Ignoring the instructions given by the Rusholmes and product use instructions on the sealing product is tantamount to negligence. The defendant may argue the case based on the property case in the newspaper as the reasoning behind the action. The argument would, however, be unlikely to suffice since case details may have differed hence resulting in the compensation ruling. The Rusholmes are likely to win the case with a compensatory verdict. Vicarious liability, which involves a company taking responsibility for its company (Gish, 2020), applies in the case. Saunders and Watts Ltd, in this case, is liable for the actions of its employees. It thus means that the company would do compensation on behalf of the negligent employees.
The Rusholmes vs. Standard Household Products Ltd
The explosion at the Rusholmes home did not occur as a result of a faulty product sold by the company. The product cans had usage instructions that warned against having devices with sparks during the use of the sealer. Ventilation requirements were also indicated on the cans. The company, in this regard, had factored in preventative and safety measures. The lack of instruction adherence by the contracting company is not the product company’s fault. The company would defend itself based on the negligence criteria.
The Rusholmes lack a burden of proof as far as the negligence criteria are concerned. As such, the case is weak and would result in the company being absolved of any liability. Suing the company is thus not viable in this regard. Standard Households Products Ltd is not liable for any damages resulting from the explosion. The damage suit is not legally sustainable, and as such, the Rusholmes would not receive any compensation from the company. Vicarious and primary liability do not apply in the case neither does intentional or unintentional tort. It cannot be held responsible for the actions taken by Saunders and Watts Ltd employees.
Conclusion
Mediation and arbitration channels may be used to settle the case out of court. Settling a case out of court not only saves money but also seeks to preserve relationships (DuPlessis et al., 2020, p11). These channels could be used in the case. However, if a settlement is not reached, the case can thus be taken to court. As regards the case involving The Rusholmes vs. Saunders and Watts Ltd and Standard Households Products Ltd the plaintiff would win the former case but lose the latter case.