Business Law Analysis

 Business Law Analysis

 Case #1

In the above case, the driver assumes that there is no need for stopping and as a result, hits and injured the pedestrian. The pedestrian had seen an indication of the traffic light and could not be safe to cross.

In the meantime, the driver accelerated and moved while the light was green, and the truck driver dared to cross. The failure of the patient to wait until the green light appears so that he can be able to walk past the truck was due to negligence.it is the right of the pedestrians to take care of the others and needed to be careful and protect other public road users.

There was an accident that resulted from the act of carelessly walking on the busy road. This led to injuring the pedestrian; the driver should always be aware that there is need of being keen to observe what is happening in the street, this could have saved the pedestrian from getting hit by the delivery truck

In courtroom context the driver is questionable since it is their role to ensure that there are safety and protection of their lives and the people using the same roads, the fact is that the green light allows people to move. It is clear that the driver was using the right way, and it is, therefore, necessary to show care to the pedestrians irrespective of them being wrong or right on the road.

Additionally, the people using the road should also take care of the driver and respect the road traffic rules. Any mistake done could result in risking the life of both the driver and the pedestrian. Walking around while the light was red showed that the pedestrian is breaching the standards of care, which can cause anxiety to the driver and cause the accident.

The pedestrian is the plaintiff since he was injured by the truck, in the same case, the truck driver and the company that employed him is the defendant. The employer is responsible for any cost that will be incurred. According to the case, the pedestrian is blamed because everything that they faced is as a result of them acting negligently. Since the defendant has committed a tort, this case can be taken to court. This being a non-pecuniary cost because there will be medication expenses that the pedestrian will incur depending on their level of the injury. Therefor eth court is supposed to come up with approximating the cost of the nation financial damage and cover the lost wages and travel expenditures.,

Additionally, the plaintiff got loss of income because they are injured and could not get into work in the same period they are undergoing the medical treatment accumulating medical bills. The pedestrian will have the responsibility since they negligently ignored the traffic lights causing the accident. Meanwhile, the driver is responsible for controlling the truck, and this is also negligence.

The court could is responsible to the plaintiff damages since he is injured. The pedestrians got accountable for causing his injuries.it can be thought that the driver could defend himself with the plaintiff negligence, which contributed to the accident. It is also clear threat the judgment could be done by the court of law the at it aim to a plaintiff who is responsible for his injury.

Following the tort law, the institution that the truck driver works will be responsible for catering for the damage caused. Even though the driver was not the negligent one, the employer will automatically be liable for the tort committed by their employee. This provided by the vicarious liability. The employer should take care of the damages that are caused by the driver to their plaintiff. The employer should be liable to cover the costs using the risk of the management plan.

Case #2

.

In the case, the driver of the delivery truck was aware that accelerating the car into another vehicle could result in some damage. The delivery driver reacted when the driver of the car in front failed to accelerate his vehicle this made the truck driver get annoyed and committed an international tort through the lights turned green the car in front of the truck driver failed to accelerate. This caused the truck driver to determine the foreign tort. In this case, the driver or owner of the vehicle that was hit was the plaintiff while the driver of the truck and his car was the defendant. If taken to court, it is clear that the driver of the delivery truck could be charged with a crime. Since he was aware that while in public road, other individuals are using the same route and acceleration could result in accidents. This means that the driver is breaching the standards of care by hitting the car that is in front of him. For instance, if the driver could be keen and see that after the indicator lights, the plaintiff failed to react due to some reason, and therefore, the truck driver shouldn’t have accelerated. The harm that was caused is due to the driver’s reaction from anger. At the same time, we can also say threat the owner of the car that was hit or the driver was also negligent since there were light indications and he should have been keen to react since failure to this resulted to the accident. Therefore the driver of the car that was hit by the truck driver can sue the owner of the truck company in the court of law since they are vicariously liable. The employer must cover the employee’s tort crime due to no financial damage.

The driver of the car in front of the delivery truck cannot be blamed for contributing to negligence which led to causing the accident reason being that it was the responsibility of any driver to be careful and notice any activity I the road. Interestingly the driver of the car in front cannot understand the reason as to why the truck driver hit him. We can, therefore, say that this accident was as a result of the truck driver negligence.

Therefore it can be judged that the car driver was not aware of the truck driver could cause the accident. This can be concluded to be an act of negligence because it caused injury. Having committed the tort crime, it is evident that the delivery truck company will be responsible for repairing the car as well as catering for the expenses of any injury that was caused by accident to the drivers and people in the car. It is the liability insurance for the risk management plan that will be utilized by the delivery truck employer to cover the damage and treatment of the plaintiff.

Case #3

As per the case, the delivery truck driver was affected by the poor weather and accidentally hit the corner store. Although the delivery truck did never har any from the store, the driver remained liable for the damages caused to the assets. This case shows that there is a sense of the driver being very keen and was aware that poor weather could contribute towards causing an accident. Although the accident has happened, and we can not blame the poor road condition, it is evident that the owner of the cornerstone will sue the company due to the tort committed by their worker. The driver was really under vicarious liability the tort law clearly shows that the driver was liable for the accident because he believed in a negligence manner.

.

The plaintiff, who is the owner of the corner store, can sue the driver for committing the tort. The indeed depending on the degree or amount of damage that was done to the cornerstone as well as the assets destroyed, the company that the truck driver works for could be liable for all loss incurred. The driver is under vicarious liability and is protected by the employer. The company is responsible for covering all lost items during the accident because the company has set risk management plan, it will, therefore, be capable of covering the loss of the assets that occurred during the crash. Moreover, the driver will be required by the plaintiff to take care of any damage that happened, since the workers and the work environment of the corner store is a mess there is a clear implication that their business will not be continuing with its normal daily activities.

Checking on the accidents, there is no evidence that the workers of the corner store constituted towards the crash. So the judges can conclude that this accident happened as a result of the truck drivers intentions since one can argue that despite the snow or poor weather the driver could have been more keen to notice the corner store and tey as much as possible to avoid it.

Then we can say that the driver took a voluntary risk. But the corner store is situated in areas where it can be identified by the road users and can contribute to accidents. We can, therefore, say that it is a result of poor weather and poor location of the cornerstone that rusted to the crash but the fact remains if the driver could have switched the vehicle off it would not have caused the accident. It is the vicarious liability of the employer to cover the loss or the damages caused by their workers through accidents.it is, therefore, clear that the defendant will be responsible for paying for the repair of the cornerstone as well as being accountable for retaining the corner store to its normal operational process.

Conclusion

Generally, as per the tort attrition, any business institution is responsible for fro risks that are caused by its employee’s negligence. The risk management plan help to show the vicarious liabilities making sure that they have a proper risk management plan, which helps in managing any risk. It, therefore, provides motives and incentive always to be keen while on the workplace to avoid tort accidents. Developing a plan to manage risk would shed light on whether workers need punishment for a place of work for committing the tort. Explaining on accident cover insurance and outlining how to take liability case and torts. Business needs to put protection into consideration while doing risk management plans.

Risk management plan helps to explain what should be done if a tort accident has happened. Any accident cover insurance and handling liability case and torts are highlighted in the companies risk management plan.  The employer covers any tort caused by the workers at work place, and also there is need of investigating whether the plaintiff has in any manner contributed to the defendant causing the tort.