Legal Reasoning Case Study: Neglect Plaintiff Dan

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 known that leaving the engine running without a parking break to hold the vehicle could have foreseeable consequences. 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 of the nearby buildings or construction zones. All truck drivers and operators "owe a duty to exercise a reasonable degree of care to protect the public from foreseeable risks that the owner [or operator in this case] knew or should have known about" (Lau & Johnson 2011).

Thus, the concept of foreseeable knowledge of the disaster is the main tenant for proving negligence in such a case. To drive a commercial vehicle, there are a number of safety and training requirements that the driver must show knowledge and mastery of. Dan clearly was hired with the correct licensing. As such, he should have clearly had the foresight to understand that leaving a vehicle on without the parking break could have had disastrous consequences.

He may not have ever thought that such a dangerous accident could have occurred, but Dan knew the basic dynamics of the vehicle and how such an operational error could have lead to the truck rolling out of control. This clearly proves that Dan had the foresight to know better than to have neglected to turn the.