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

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
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. Dallas and Waco can sue Austin for lighting a cigarette and throwing away the match in
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 5

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

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online