Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

Ron supervises delivery of flowers for a wholesale distributor of fresh flowers, Flowers. Inc. In order to accommodate one of the company's best customers, Ron offers to immediately rush a delivery of...

1 answer below »

Ron supervises delivery of flowers for a wholesale distributor of fresh flowers, Flowers. Inc. In order to accommodate one of the company's best customers, Ron offers to immediately rush a delivery of fresh peonies. All of the delivery trucks are currently out on delivery. Ron directs an employee, Ruth, to use her own vehicle to deliver the flowers.

Ruth carelessly parks her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolls down the hill, knocking down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignite a grass fire. The fire spreads until it reaches a gasoline station one mile away. There is a tanker truck off-loading gasoline to the station's gas tanks. The fire ignites the gasoline being pumped into the tanks, and one of the tanks explodes, causing part of the station structure to fall on and injure a passing motorist, Jim.

Can Jim recover damages from Ruth; from Flowers' Inc? Why or why not?

Identify the cause of action. Discuss each element of the cause of action, and relate them to your assessment of whether Jim has a cause of action against Ruth.

Discuss the legal doctrine under which Jim might also recover from Flowers, Inc.

Answered Same Day Dec 23, 2021

Solution

Robert answered on Dec 23 2021
109 Votes
RUNNING HEAD: Critical Legal Thinking Case Assignment One
Running Head: Critical legal thinking case assignment
1 | P a g e
Critical Legal Thinking Case Assignment One
Business Law and Ethics
BUL 3130
September 19, 2013
Running Head: Critical legal thinking case assignment
2 | P a g e
Abstract

This case analysis discusses a scenario about negligence law; a scenario in which Ruth,
an employee of Flower Inc, failed to fulfill his duty of care appropriately, which caused
huge loss. Analysis helped in understanding the applicability of negligence law, failure to
fulfill duty of care,
each of duty by Ruth, causation proximate which caused severe loss
to Jim. This analysis provides a conflicting scenario to evaluate the legal position of Jim,
Ruth and Flower Inc.
Running Head: Critical legal thinking case assignment
3 | P a g e
Key Facts

Given scenario shows that failure of duty of care occu
ed on the part of Ruth, as it is
mentioned Ruth carelessly parked the car on steep hill, left the car on neutral condition
without engaging the parking
akes appropriately. However, several including took
place due to this
eakdown and this chain of events caused injury to Jim.
Areas and Principles of Law

Major principle law which is applicable in the given case study is the negligence and tort
law. According to the given case it is very much visible that Ruth failed to fulfill...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here