Legal Reasoning Case Study: Neglect Plaintiff Dan was an operator of a truck with the company EZ Delivery. After being hired and receiving the necessary safety training, Dan was involved in a serious accident which resulted in the injury of bystander Flo. Dan had left the motor of the truck running, without remembering to set the parking break correctly. As a result, the truck rolled and crashed into a gas station which ignited a fire that spread to a construction zone. This said fire then caused one of the cranes on site to collapse onto Flo.

Essentially, the primary issues of the case are the fact that Dan, despite being a certified driver of a commercial delivery truck, carelessly left the truck in a vulnerable position that had foreseeable consequences. Dan had been operating motor vehicles under the approval of state licensing. Thus, he was well informed regarding the nature of vehicle safety. He should have...

Despite the fact this action may have saved him some time on his delivery, as a licensed operator of motor vehicles within the state, he should have known that there could have been foreseeable consequences to his dangerous actions.
Most states within the United States have direct negligence rules that place blame on owners or operators for truck negligence if actions are taken that could provoke a dangerous situation that could have been avoided. These rules essentially claim that "if the risk of harm is foreseeable, then the duty exists" to take the necessary precautions to avoid potential harm to bystanders (Lau & Johnson 2011). Although Dan had no intent of starting the accident, he clearly had some degree of foresight as to what could happen if the truck rolled into the street or any…