Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Business Law Case study, Assignments of Business Ethics

This is a case study that we had to do for a business law class.

Typology: Assignments

2019/2020

Uploaded on 06/22/2020

zohra-raza
zohra-raza 🇨🇦

5 documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Business Law Analysis
Tort Law
Example #1:
In the case of the driver in example one, where a driver was approaching the intersection, they
had the right of way at the intersection since the light was green. The driver did not realize that a
pedestrian would start crossing the road when they weren’t supposed to, and since they couldn’t
stop their vehicle on time, they ended up hitting the pedestrian, causing serious personal injuries.
In this case if the pedestrian does try to file a civil suit, they would have to prove that it was the
driver who was negligent while driving. The plaintiff; whom in this case would be the
pedestrian; can try to claim pecuniary damages. The defendant; who would be the driver; can
successfully argue the defense of contributory negligence, to prove that the driving laws
permitted them drive through the intersection at the green light without stopping, was not at
fault, and that the plaintiff should have waited for the light to turn red for on-coming traffic
before trying to cross the street. If the plaintiff fails to shift the blame for the accident onto the
defendant, then the plaintiff will not be compensated. In this situation the tort law does not
provide a remedy to compensate for the plaintiffs damages.
Example #2:
In the case of example two, where a delivery driver was approaching an intersection, and they
stop behind a car at a red light, but when the light turns green, but the car in the front doesn’t
move, and the delivery driver becomes frustrated and hits their vehicle to the vehicle in the front,
and their negligence causes personal damage to the front driver, so the delivery driver should be
held as the tort-feasor.
The driver in the front vehicle can file a civil suit against the delivery driver by claiming that the
primary liability is of the driver. The plaintiff; whom in this case is the driver of the front
vehicle; can also hold vicarious liability against the company, for whom the delivery driver
worked for since at the time the driver was working on furthering the interest of their employer.
The plaintiff can file for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages since the accident caused them
personal injuries, which could also cause loss of income. The plaintiff can also ask for punitive
damages. The plaintiff can claim that the defendant could have honked at the plaintiff to signal
him to move, instead of becoming agitated and driving into the plaintiffs’ car. The monetary
amount awarded to the plaintiff can help with any loss of income, damage to their car, and
compensate them for their pain and suffering. In the civil suit, the defendant may use
contributory negligence against the plaintiff, by claiming that the plaintiff also didn’t comply
with the driving laws since they didn’t begin driving their car once the lights turned green. The
defendant might try to prove different ways that the plaintiff was negligent, for example they
might say that the plaintiff wasn’t wearing his seatbelt while driving, or that the plaintiff might
pf2

Partial preview of the text

Download Business Law Case study and more Assignments Business Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!

Business Law Analysis

Tort Law

Example #1: In the case of the driver in example one, where a driver was approaching the intersection, they had the right of way at the intersection since the light was green. The driver did not realize that a pedestrian would start crossing the road when they weren’t supposed to, and since they couldn’t stop their vehicle on time, they ended up hitting the pedestrian, causing serious personal injuries. In this case if the pedestrian does try to file a civil suit, they would have to prove that it was the driver who was negligent while driving. The plaintiff; whom in this case would be the pedestrian; can try to claim pecuniary damages. The defendant; who would be the driver; can successfully argue the defense of contributory negligence, to prove that the driving laws permitted them drive through the intersection at the green light without stopping, was not at fault, and that the plaintiff should have waited for the light to turn red for on-coming traffic before trying to cross the street. If the plaintiff fails to shift the blame for the accident onto the defendant, then the plaintiff will not be compensated. In this situation the tort law does not provide a remedy to compensate for the plaintiffs damages. Example #2: In the case of example two, where a delivery driver was approaching an intersection, and they stop behind a car at a red light, but when the light turns green, but the car in the front doesn’t move, and the delivery driver becomes frustrated and hits their vehicle to the vehicle in the front, and their negligence causes personal damage to the front driver, so the delivery driver should be held as the tort-feasor. The driver in the front vehicle can file a civil suit against the delivery driver by claiming that the primary liability is of the driver. The plaintiff; whom in this case is the driver of the front vehicle; can also hold vicarious liability against the company, for whom the delivery driver worked for since at the time the driver was working on furthering the interest of their employer. The plaintiff can file for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages since the accident caused them personal injuries, which could also cause loss of income. The plaintiff can also ask for punitive damages. The plaintiff can claim that the defendant could have honked at the plaintiff to signal him to move, instead of becoming agitated and driving into the plaintiffs’ car. The monetary amount awarded to the plaintiff can help with any loss of income, damage to their car, and compensate them for their pain and suffering. In the civil suit, the defendant may use contributory negligence against the plaintiff, by claiming that the plaintiff also didn’t comply with the driving laws since they didn’t begin driving their car once the lights turned green. The defendant might try to prove different ways that the plaintiff was negligent, for example they might say that the plaintiff wasn’t wearing his seatbelt while driving, or that the plaintiff might

have had alcohol above the legal limit in their system, that prevented them from realizing when the light turned green. The plaintiff needs to argue successfully why they didn’t begin driving on the green light and prove that the defendant failed to comply to the driving laws, so they can be compensated for damages for the accident. Example #3: In example three, a delivery truck driver, while completing his daily route for his job during a severe snow storm, has his truck slide off the road and hits a store and causes severe property damage and injures an employee. The store, and its employee can file a civil suit against the driver of the vehicle. The plaintiffs; whom in this case would be the store owner, and their employee; can claim the tort negligence of the driver and hold primary liability to the driver. The plaintiffs can also apply vicarious liability to the employer of the delivery truck, on whose interest the driver was working towards, and apply vicarious liability towards their municipal government for failing to maintain safe roads by cleaning up snow in a timely manner during severe weather. The plaintiff may try to argue that the defendant was being reckless while driving, and should have altered his speed, considering the severe weather. In this case, there is no mention of the driver being reckless on the road, and there is no suggestion that they were under the influence of alcohol while driving either. The purpose of the tort law is to compensate in the form of damages to the injured party, but only if the injured party can successfully shift the responsibility on another party for the loss. The Insurance act relating to auto insurance varied from province to province, a pure no-fault system eliminates the ability to claim tort. In this case the severe weather seems to be the cause of the accident, for which the driver, the employee of the driver, or the municipal government can’t always be held responsible. It would be very difficult to prove that the defendant in this case should have the responsibility of the accident shifted on them. 1 (^1) Canadian Business And The Law Sixth Edition by Dorothy DuPlessis, Shannon O’Byrne, Philip King, Lorrie Adams, and Steven Enman.