FALL 2009 Midterm - Management C31 Midterm Examination Fall...

Management C31
Midterm Examination
Fall 2009
Marking Key
Question 1 on Negligence
Dallas, Austin and Waco can sue Positive for their injuries
 they would sue Positive for negligently allowing them to enter the premises
where dangerous articles were stored. The argument would be that
o Positive negligently allowed a low fence around their property when a
high fence was required
o Positive negligently allowed access to their warehouse. Since explosives
were stored in the warehouse, Positive should have taken extra precautions
to keep people out.
o Positive fell below the standard of care in failing to keep the boys out.
Since Positive was storing dangerous substances on the property, Positive
had a duty of care to all who might enter the property, as it was reasonably
foreseeable that harm would come to anyone on the premises. Failing to
keep the boys out of the warehouse fell below the standard of care and led
directly to injuries.
 they would sue Positive for negligently permitting the explosion
o Positive negligently allowed an open container of blasting caps in its
warehouse. Positive should realize that anyone on the premises might be
injured as the caps could be detonated easily.
o As we are dealing with explosives, Positive’s liability may well approach
strict liability, under which if the injury occurs, Positive would be liable
even without proving Positive had fallen below the standard of care.
Dallas, Austin and Waco can sue JMR for its negligence in erecting the fence
 JMR should realize that the fence is being erected to keep people out of a
dangerous place, and thus owes a duty to the public to erect the fence so that it
would indeed keep people out of Positive’s warehouse. The fence did not do
that – it clearly was too low, and JMR’s own personnel should have realized
the problem.
 If Dallas et al. do not sue JMR directly, Positive would sue JMR on the same
grounds, seeking indemnity against any damages payable to Dallas et al. and
for is own property damages. JMR should realize that Positive is relying on it
to meet reasonable safety standards, which it did not do.
Dallas, Austin and Waco can sue the Ontario government for its negligence in inspecting
the fence.
 the government gave certain specifications for the fence, and then took on the
duty of inspecting the fence
 the government had no duty to inspect, but once it did inspect, it owed the
public, including Dallas and his friends, the duty to inspect properly. It was

reasonably foreseeable that if the fence did not keep people out of a dangerous
facility that harm could result. The government knew the facility was
dangerous and recommended a fence that was suitable. The government
inspector then approved a fence that was obviously below standard. This
approval then breaches the standard expected of a government inspection, and
led directly to the injuries.