Law and economics at workplace
Despite the various arguments brought forth, for all to be made whole, the rule of law must apply in every situation. For the claims brought by the different parties, in this case, the judge would be able to give a verdict, based on truth and evidence for all. For Mrs. Naps, the damages caused should be covered by the company, the owner of the truck (Dnes, 2018). Due to the lack of truck cover, the burden shifts to the company, represented in this case by the CEO.
Further, Ruby should also be paid the damages by the company whose truck had caused the accident. She should also be facilitated for going to school, and this should be in any form, the means should not matter that much. If her cover has a close that covers the car’s driver, then she should be covered for any damage caused (Karabulut, Christos & Marangoz, 2019). However, all her claims would be valid upon an establishment that it was the truck driver on the wrong before the accident.
The driver is generally on the wrong. He is an illegal immigrant, without documentation on citizenship or driver authorization, drives an uninsured truck and drives under the influence of alcohol. All these are traffic offenses in law, and anybody who breaches such should be sentenced or fined (Dnes, 2018). However, the truck driver should be covered from company interference as it was the negligence of the company that made him drive the truck illegally.
Additionally, the lawyer has the truth and should advise the company well on the matters law and its operations diverse environments. His advice would help the company avoid time-wasting and quick return to the services. He should thus advise the company properly on the applying rule of law.
Lastly, the company should be fined by the court for failing to ensure the truck against risks. Moreover, there were no background checks at the time of employment by the company, and that could be the reason the driver, an illegal immigrant, was employed by the company. It is thus clear that the company, through the CEO, should again be charged with negligence to validate papers before using an individual. The escaped chicken trespassed and caused damage, and therefore it is the damages caused that should be paid for rather than the chicken themselves (Karabulut, Christos & Marangoz, 2019).