Business Law Analysis

The delivery truck driver ignores stopping in time consequently hitting a pedestrian injuring him seriously.pedeatrian had seen the red green indicating that it si not sfe to cross the road.At the same time the driver was accelerating so as to move on a green light.Tdue to negligeneh pedertatrina ould nnot wait until green light appears to allow them to walk but due to negligence .

Pedestrinas should understand that they hve the responsibility of protecting others as well as avoiding careless acts.,The act of walsking while the deleivery truk was passing and without permission resulted to the accidents.

On the other hand the driver should have understood that any time they are on the reoad they have to tke care of people outside .He ould have observed and seen the pedestrian and slowed down or stop to a void injuring the pedenstrian.

In the court situation it would be argued that it is not the driver’s role to check on the people crossing the road as long as there green light it means that nobody should walk. It shows that the driver was doing it following the right way.

The driver should show some care irrespective of the fat that the pedestrian was in wrong and could have not done the walk in front of the truck.

The pedestrian also should take care of the driver and always walk when permitted by the walk lights sine failure to observe could result to dangers to both the driver and the pedestrians.

both pedestrian and delivery driver are supposed to keenly observe the laws and rules of the road and observe all the signals and lights while using public raods.
Walking out inn red light aused the pedestrian breach their standsrds of are ,this results to anxiety tyo the driver resulting to the accident.

The plaintiff in this case is the pedestrian because he was injured by a delivery truck.The defendants in the same ase would be the truck driver and his employer the viariously laible.Acrdingly the pedentrsin is laible for his way off acting negligently.The plaintiff case can be taken to court due to the fact that the defendant has committed a tort.

There will be non pecuniary cost sine the plaintif will have medicll expesense and rehabilitation expenses based on the level of injury.the court could as well ome up with finding that the non pecuniary demage an as well cover lost pleasure,lost wages as well as travel expenditure and rehabilitation.

The pecuniary damages (Ch. 10, 10-5b) that the plaintiff received include loss of future income and out-of-pocket expenses. The injuries received by the plaintiff, depending on the degree, would lead to loss of time at work and accumulate extensive medical expenses which could come out of the plaintiff’s pocket.

the injuries could

Most of the responsibility lies upon the pedestrian for ignoring their red light and walking out into oncoming traffic. The driver has a duty of care and control of their vehicle, so they are also found partially negligent. A court may reduce the plaintiff’s damages drastically due to their degree of responsibility for their injuries.

In this case, it was the pedestrian who got hurt because of their own choice to walk out in front of the delivery truck on its green light. If the plaintiff decided to sue the delivery driver for damages, the delivery driver would be able to use the defense of contributory negligence against the pedestrian. This means that the plaintiff has been found the be partially responsible for the injuries or harm they have incurred. The judge would find the pedestrian contributorily negligent and reduce the awards they are to receive to correspond with the degree of their responsibility.

The delivery driver may also be able to use the defense of voluntary assumption of risk. The driver would have to prove that the pedestrian knew of the risks they were facing when they decided to walk out in front of the delivery vehicle against a red light. The delivery driver had a green light at the intersection, signaling that they had the right of way. Hitting the pedestrian who decided to walk out against their red light was an accident caused by the pedestrian being negligent. The pedestrian failed to act reasonably by choosing to face the risks associated with walking out against the red light, automatically rendering the plaintiff partially responsible for their injuries. This would prove that the plaintiff crossed the road with a voluntary assumption of the risks involved.

The delivery driver would likely be found strictly liable for their actions, meaning that the driver would be found liable for the injuries to the pedestrian even though the driver has not been negligent.   Because the driver is employed by their company, the company will be found vicariously liable for the damages caused under the tort committed by the driver. In this case, the driver may not have been negligent, but the delivery driver’s employer is automatically liable for any tort committed by their employees while on duty under strict and vicarious liability.

The pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages accumulated by the plaintiff are the responsibility of the driver. Because the driver’s employer is automatically vicariously liable, the employer is now responsible for covering the damages received by the plaintiff. In this case, the employer should have liability insurance to cover accidents committed by their employees under a risk management plan. This insurance with the employer will cover the reward to be received by the plaintiff either in full or partially, depending on the type of liability insurance that the employer has. (Ch. 3, 3-1a)

Case #2

A delivery driver is completing his daily route and is approaching an intersection which signals a red light for him to stop.  He does so, but when the light turns green, the vehicle ahead of him does not proceed.  The delivery truck driver becomes agitated and accelerates, hitting the vehicle ahead of him, causing personal injury to the driver of that vehicle.

The driver in the vehicle in front of the delivery truck was given the green light to go. In this case, it is unknown as to why the driver did not continue forward when they saw the green light. The delivery driver became agitated and hit the vehicle in front of them. This is considered negligence because all drivers have the duty of care and control of their vehicles which includes giving other drivers the appropriate amount of time to adjust to speeds, make changes in lanes and respond to traffic lights.

The duty of care that all drivers and pedestrians owe while sharing the road is important in this case. As well as the delivery driver having a duty of care for other drivers and pedestrians, the driver in the other vehicle also owes the same duty of care. This means that it is their responsibility to not hold up traffic if they are in a line up at a green light. Although it is understandable that the car may be having trouble or there is anxiety as to whether it is safe to go, a vehicle at the green light still owes a duty of care to the other drivers around them that they will proceed in a timely manner.

The delivery driver in this case committed an intentional tort. As the light at the intersection turned green and the vehicle in front of him did not react quickly enough, the driver accelerated and hit the vehicle causing injuries to the driver and damage to the vehicle. The delivery driver knew that accelerating his truck into another vehicle would cause some degree of damage. Because tort law states that the tort of negligence makes the defendant liable for failing to act reasonably, the courts would find that the delivery driver is liable in this case because of the damages he caused for not acting in such a manner. (Ch. 10, 10-3, 10-4)

In this case, the plaintiff does owe the delivery driver a duty of care simply because of the responsibility to keep oneself and other drivers safe of the road. The defendant however, owes a duty of care to the plaintiff for the same reasons. It is not the delivery driver’s right to damage another vehicle or injure another driver because of an action that they justify as an annoyance. The vehicle in front of the delivery vehicle was simply holding up traffic, but the delivery driver became agitated and caused injury and damage.

The harm committed in this case was reasonably foreseeable. The delivery driver knew that damages would be caused had they accelerated into the vehicle in front of them. This concept contributes to the delivery driver’s tort of negligence. The driver has neglected to consider the damage to the vehicle and injury to the driver that they may cause because they had decided to react by hitting the vehicle with theirs. The standard of care was breached when the delivery driver chose to damage the vehicle in front of him and injure the driver of that vehicle.

Like case number one, the delivery driver and the driver of the other vehicle hold a relationship simply for sharing the same roads. This imposes a duty of care on both parties to act reasonably and carefully while on the roads, and respect other drivers and their safety.

Causation appears to be in place in this case, as the plaintiff’s injuries would not have been sustained had the defendant not accelerated into their vehicle. (Ch. 11, 11-1b) Because the delivery driver became agitated and acted upon their frustration, the driver of the other vehicle received injuries and damages to their vehicle. Had the delivery driver not become agitated, or simply decided to sound the horn of their vehicle, the injuries and damage to the plaintiff and their car may not have occurred. The remoteness of damage (Ch. 11, 11-1b) in this case is very clear. Any injuries that the plaintiff received from the accident along with any damages from the delivery vehicle hitting theirs could conclude that those damages and injuries occurred only because the delivery driver became agitated.

In this case, the plaintiff would be the driver in the first car who received injury when the delivery driver accelerated into their vehicle and damages to their vehicle as well. The defendant would be the driver of the delivery truck.  In tort law, the plaintiff is responsible for acting in a negligence case. (Ch. 10, 10-3b) The plaintiff’s case may be brought to court because a tort has been committed by the defendant.

The damages caused when the delivery driver accelerated into the front vehicle have caused injuries to the driver. When the delivery driver accelerated and hit the vehicle in front of them, it is obvious that property damage would be done to the vehicle, especially if the impact was hard enough to cause injuries to the driver. These pecuniary damages  will result in the reward of out-of-pocket expenses to fix the plaintiff’s vehicle and missed wages at work due to injury. Because this is a crime of possible property damage and possible battery, as well as a tort of negligence, the case would most likely be covered in two separate hearings as a civil case and as a criminal case.  In a criminal case, the delivery driver will cover the pecuniary damages that have been caused by their actions.

If it is found that the plaintiff had been distracted by a cell phone or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the plaintiff would be found contributory negligent to the damages caused. This would be because it would partially be the plaintiff’s fault for the damages they received. Had they not been distracted on a cell phone or impaired by a substance, the flow of traffic would not have been disrupted. This would result in the delivery driver remaining calm and not accelerating into a vehicle due to aggravation. The plaintiff’s reward for pecuniary, non-pecuniary and punitive damages will be reduced depending on the degree of the plaintiff’s responsibility for their vehicle being hit by another.

The plaintiff may also sue the driver, and the driver’s employer for non-pecuniary damages. These damages would include pain and suffering, and depending on the degree of the injuries, loss of enjoyment of life. The damages will have to be paid by the delivery driver’s employer in a civil law hearing due to the employer being vicariously liable for their employees. This means that the delivery driver’s employer will cover non-pecuniary damages under the tort of negligence, usually under liability insurance through an insurance company.

The delivery driver accelerated into the vehicle in front of them due to aggravation, so the court may find that the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages also. Punitive damages are awarded to punish the defendant for destructive, malicious, or high-handed behavior.In this case, the defendant became aggravated and decided that it was the driver in front of them who was causing the delay in procession on a green light. The delivery driver then negligently accelerated his vehicle to intentionally cause damage to the other vehicle or personal injury to the driver. The courts would find in a criminal case that the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages to punish the defendant’s offensive actions. In a criminal case, the defendant would be required the pay the damages themselves, as any crime committed by an employee while on duty is not the responsibility of the employer.

The pecuniary, non-pecuniary, and punitive damages accumulated by the plaintiff are the responsibility of the driver, and in turn, the responsibility of their employer. Because a crime was committed, separate criminal and civil hearings in court will proceed for the different levels of law being covered in this case.

It is unknown as to why the driver of the vehicle in front of the delivery truck did not react to the green light in a prompt manner. If it was a common distraction such as being weary of other drivers, the driver in the vehicle in front would not be found contributory negligent in this case. As stated, drivers have a duty of care and control of their vehicles which includes allowing other driver’s adequate time to perform tasks.

The delivery driver does not have the right to judge the amount of time it should take a vehicle to accelerate from a stop at a red light and proceed through an intersection on a green. Every vehicle has a duty of care to proceed in a timely manner. The vehicle in front of the delivery driver, for example, could be having car trouble. The vehicle may not be able to accelerate at the delivery driver’s convenience. It is also possible that the driver of the vehicle in front of the delivery vehicle was weary or anxious in response to the actions of other drivers or a situation happening within or around the intersection.

There is no evidence of voluntary assumption of risk in this case. The plaintiff was not aware of the risks involved in their actions and unaware that their actions would result in injury or damage to their vehicle. It would be reasonable for the plaintiff to move their vehicle off the road if it were expected that they would cause a disruption in the flow of traffic. This suggests that the plaintiff did not intend to cause anyone any delay or harm and did not expect the reaction of the delivery driver.

In this case, the driver of the delivery truck has firstly committed the tort of negligence. The delivery driver’s employer will be vicariously liable for the tort of negligence that their employee committed while on duty. The employer will be required to cover the damages caused by the driver’s tort. This means that although the driver is responsible, their employer will cover the damages incurred by the plaintiff on behalf of the driver usually through liability insurance under the employer’s risk management plan.

The driver has secondly committed a crime when they intentionally caused injury and damage to the other driver and their vehicle. The delivery driver intentionally drove into the other vehicle for the reason of being aggravated. In this case, the driver will be held strictly liable   for the crime he committed. Any employer is not liable for any crimes committed by an employee while on duty. The delivery driver must cover these damages on his own.

A civil case and a criminal case will be held to cover the tort and criminal actions of the defendant in this case.

Case #3

A delivery driver is completing his daily route and during a severe snow storm, his truck slides off the road and hits a corner store causing severe property damage and injuring an employee.

The delivery driver faced poor weather conditions and unfortunately lost control of his vehicle. Because of the snow storm, their vehicle caused extensive property damage and injuries to an employee of a corner store when it slid off the road, ultimately rendering the delivery driver negligent and responsible.

As the driver of a delivery vehicle, the driver holds the duty of care and control of his vehicle. As the vehicle lost control, the driver could have done everything in their power to avoid causing damage or injury. Even doing so, the delivery vehicle in this case hit a corner store, causing damage and injuring an employee. In tort law, strict liability states that a person is liable for damages and injuries they have caused, even if they were not negligent and had exercised care.  In this case, the driver is liable for the accident due to the snow storm even if they did not intentionally harm the employee of the corner store or cause damages to the structure.

Driving in a snow storm is obviously dangerous. Anyone who is to drive in a snow storm should be aware of the dangers and the possibility of being in an accident. The delivery driver was aware of these risks and would reasonably take extra care when delivering his daily route. As a driver of any vehicle, a person owes a duty of care to other drivers and individuals also using the roadways. In this case, the delivery driver owed a duty of care to the buildings along the streets of his route and any pedestrians or other vehicles as well.

However, due to poor weather conditions, the delivery driver lost control of their vehicle and caused damages and injury. This accident may be argued as reasonably foreseeable, as an accident can be predicted in a snow storm. The driver, however, could not predict that they would cause damage to the corner store or injuries to the employee at the time of the accident. In this case, it can be assumed that the risks of the poor road conditions were considered by the driver and they took extra care to avoid causing an accident.

The only clear relationship in this case is the possible relationship between the corner store and the delivery driver’s company. The corner store could have been the delivery drop-off location that the driver was in route for as they lost control of the vehicle. This does not conclude that there is a proximity to their relationship though, and states that the proximity of their relationship is that the corner store is simply along the delivery driver’s route.

In this case, it is assumed that the delivery driver knew of the dangers of driving in a snow storm and took extra care when doing their daily route on the day of the accident. Unfortunately, the poor road conditions due to the snow storm caused the delivery driver to lose control of their vehicle. Although the driver is at fault for damages and injuries that they have caused, they did not breach the standard of care in this case. The elements of the situation were out of their control, such as the weather and the reaction of their vehicle’s tires and brakes.
Had the delivery vehicle not lost control, the damages to the store and the injuries the store employee received would not have occurred. Causation is in place in this case.  Even though the defendant is not personally responsible, the tort law states that if the plaintiff would not had received damages had the defendant’s actions had not taken place, then the defendant is found to be responsible. The remoteness of the damages the plaintiff received in this case are close to the actions of the defendant.

The plaintiff is the corner store under the representation of the owner or manager, who can sue for damages to their store as well as sue for the injuries received on behalf of their injured employee. The defendant would be the delivery truck driver which, in turn, would be the delivery company under vicarious liability. In tort law, the plaintiff is responsible for acting in a negligence case.  The plaintiff’s case may be brought to court because a tort has been committed by the defendant.

The employee of the corner store who was injured because of the accident can sue for non-pecuniary damages as well as pecuniary damages through representation of their employer.   These damages would include pain and suffering, loss of future income, and out-of-pocket expenses. The injuries caused by the accident would likely result in lost time at work and medical expenses. Depending on the degree of the injury, the employee could also sue for loss of enjoyment of life. They would pursue the delivery driver’s employer under vicarious liability for a lawsuit.

The owner or managerial authority at the store can sue the delivery driver’s employer under vicarious liability for the damages caused to the store and injuries to their employee. Pecuniary damages that the corner store may be entitled to include loss of future income and out-of-pocket expenses. The damage to the store due to the accident would take time and money to repair, resulting in the store losing business and revenue. The store is entitled to these damages through the courts. The corner store’s manager or owner would sue the delivery driver’s employer on behalf of the store and its injured employee. The deliver driver’s employer would cover the damages under their liability insurance through their risk management plan.

Contributory negligence is used as a defense when the defendant states that the damages or injuries incurred by the plaintiff only occurred because of partial fault of the plaintiff. in this case, there is no evidence of contributory negligence, as the plaintiff did not contribute to the damages or injuries caused by the accident. It could be argued that the corner store and the employee assume voluntary assumption of risk. Simply by being situated on a corner of a street where an accident is more likely to occur, they are aware of the risks of working there. Because the risk of a vehicle crashing into the corner store and injuring an employee is so low and considered a very specific risk, it is safe to assume that there is no evidence of voluntary assumption of risk in this case.

In this case, the damages and injuries caused by the delivery vehicle sliding off the road were an accident due to poor weather conditions. The delivery driver is strictly liable for the damages and injuries they have caused even if they were acting with care. This means that even though the driver could have tried to avoid the accident with all their capabilities, the accident was still caused by them. As a form of strict liability, these damages would automatically be the responsibility of the delivery driver’s employer through vicarious liability, and covered under insurance through a risk management plan. Vicarious liability automatically makes the delivery driver’s employer responsible for the damages caused by their employee.

Conclusion

Based on tort attritions business firms are prone to risks mostly due to negilegence.It is very important to come up with risk management plan in any business. The plan would highlight the vicarious liabilities so as to ensure that employees are aware of  the opinions responsibility to be responsible for the torts done by the people working there. It helps in giving the employees motivation and incentives to be keen while on work place to ensure that they do not commit any tort accidentally.

Developing a plan to manage risk would shade light on wether workers need punishment for at place of work for committing tort.Explaining on accident cover insurance and outlining how to take handle liability case and torts .Bussiness need to put insurane in consideration while doing risk management plans.

The company will be responsible for torts committed by its workers coming up with plans to mitigate unnecessary costs lie penalties fines .Generally avoiding cost related to torts resulting from employees.There is need of coming up with plans to manage risks as this will make business to overcome any threat. For instance employee insurance vicarious liability and development of better risk management plan could make it easier