Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Negligence Claim and the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
The situation at Don and his wife barbeque party is an example of a negligence and product liability case that resulted in significant burns on John's body. While Don was did not know that the can of lighter fluid had several leaks, his actions and their consequences make him liable for negligence. In addition, the lighter fluid maker is liable for the product because of the leaks which generated inherent danger on users. Therefore, John should file a lawsuit against Don for negligence and sue the company that manufactures lighter fluid for product liability it had leaks with inherent danger that caused significant damage on his body.
In the lawsuit against Don for negligence, John should claim that Don did not use the required standard of care when using the lighter fluid because of the probable danger associated with such products. Generally, negligence liability is a civil matter that requires the victim to demonstrate that the defendant owed them duty of care ("What Can You be Liable For and Why?" n.d.). This implies that in the negligence claim against Don, John needs to prove that the duty of care owed to him was breached and resulted in foreseeable harm. In this scenario, it is quite evident...
one-third burns on John's body.
As previously mentioned, John should also sue the company that manufactures lighter fluid for product liability. Generally, product liability involves holding a manufacturer liable for providing a defective product in the market ("What is Product Liability?" n.d.). In this case, the responsibility for the defective product that eventually resulted in significant burns on John's body lies with the manufacturer. Therefore, the grounds for the product liability claim against the lighter fluid maker is the need for a product with such danger to be made in a way that leaks would not occur and generate significant damage.
The Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
The doctrine of respondeat superior implies that employers or managers can be held liable for the explicit or indirect work-related actions of their employees. Generally, this legal doctrine considers the actions of the employee as the actions of the employer or manager (Sommerville, 2007, p.74). However, a respondeat superior claim is usually difficult to prove since it requires the victim to demonstrate that the employee's wrongful act…
References
Sommerville, K.L. (2007). Hospitality employee management and supervision: concepts and practical implications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
"What Can You be Liable For and Why?" (n.d.). Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved August 10, 2015, from http://www.rsc.org/images/4_liable_tcm18-17646.pdf
"What is Product Liability?" (n.d.). Find Law. Retrieved August 10, 2015, from http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/what-is-product-liability.html
Negligence and Respondeat Superior: Should Employers be Held Responsible for Employee Negligence? Negligence "A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances" (West, 2008). To establish a claim of negligence, a plaintiff has to establish four elements: duty of care, breach of duty, factual causation, and damages (Berry, Sahradnik, Kotzas, & Benson, 2013). The duty of care
Mitchell. The left arm of the child had to be amputated because of the unsuccessful vascular operation. According to the court session, there was a question to be answered in relation to the agency theory in determining the role of Dr. Williams in this encounter (Tenn Ct App 1970). The article also focuses on reviewing the case of Edmands v. Chamberlain Memorial Hospital in the context of 1978. The case
Did he have the right to make such promises knowing that the company may be moving to Mexico? The simple answer is no. It was unethical to make such promises knowing full well that the company may be moving to Mexico. However, it is not always simple. He made the promises knowing that the company MIGHT move to Mexico. The negotiations are still ongoing so at the time the
Healthcare Legal Legal Aspects of Health Care Administration Please answer the question below: Give and support two arguments for and two arguments against Euthanasia. (Note: Pages 430 to 433 in Pozgar's textbook will provide some background on the issue). In modern medical practice the meaning of euthanasia is an action that assists dying in someone who has requested it and countries such as Belgium, where it is a legal practice, require that the person
Given the context and the fact that being a convicted criminal and a sex offender could conceivably make the risk of any type of abuse (whether or not of a sexual nature) foreseeable, that defense is unlikely to succeed. However, generally, the knowledge of one Board member who does not disclose that knowledge to the Board will not be imputed to the rest of the Board. In any case,
The benefit of creating the term at this point is that lawmakers and prosecutors and defense lawyers will all be aware of the growth of the term as it moves through the judicial birth canal and is delivered in its full meaning, with all its parts in working order and ready to be tested at trial. Draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill Important as the corporate manslaughter bill is to many people, it