Tort Liabilities and Principals

Tort Liabilities and Principals

The law of contract has been perceived as a distinct form law of torts. This may be so, but they are greatly linked. In the execution of contracts, issues may come up that can only be handle under torts. The current case presents a contract in which the contracted party (Real Transit) passes the responsibility to a third party (Bright Futures). Different tort liabilities arise as a result of the actions of the subcontracted third party. The primary tort, in this case, is negligence. However, it should be noted that Real Transit cannot avoid the liability simply because it passed on the responsibility to Bright Futures. This paper analyses the tort liabilities and principles underlying the case.

The case revolves around negligence. Bright Futures should have conducted their study to evaluate the situation of the tunnel before proceeding to install the system. Failure to do so amounts to ignorance, and for that, they are liable for the damage caused. However, both the principles of vicarious liability and composite liability apply in this case. First, vicarious liability is when one party is responsible for the actions of another. In this case, since the municipal government signed a contract with Real Transit, the former can hold the latter responsible for the actions of the third party. Second, composite liability is when the action of two different parties lead to one outcome. In the present case, the cause of the damage is ignorance. Both Real Transit and Bright Futures are liable for ignorance. Real Transit knew that there were reports on the situation of the tunnel but never took the responsibility to avail such reports, as the contracting party. As such, both organizations’ actions in one way or the other resulted in the loss that the municipal government had to pay for later.

Further, the principle of strict liability also applies. The principle holds that even if the defendant is responsible for the damage regardless of the intention. This means that the defendant might have done the due diligence, but will still be liable for any damages caused to the complainant. The complainant only has to prove legal damages. In the present case, Real Transit may not have had any intention regarding the eventual deterioration of the installed systems. However, the municipal government suffered legal damages in terms of time and money invested in rebuilding and reinstalling the system. As a result, Real Transit, as the contracted company becomes liable for the damage suffered.

Seemingly, there are two sides to this case. Of course, the municipal government will sue Real Transit for damages. Real Transit will not have a legal way to nullify this because it is legally bound by the contract. Therefore, the government will receive damages from Real Transit. The second scenario is a suit between the two companies. Real Transit will sue Bright Futures for negligence resulting in damages in the form of the amount paid to the government. Bright Futures could argue that Real Transit withheld the reports on the situation of the tunnel. However, it will still be held liable for not carrying due diligence in implementing such a project. The company should have had a reliable framework that involved a clear understanding of the situation of the tunnel. This means that failure to conduct their study was Bright Future’s fault, hence it is liable for the damage. Besides, the information about the existence of such reports was brought forth. Therefore, Bright Futures will definitely be liable for ignorance.