USA v France PC9 Brief

USA v France PC9 Brief - USA v. Republic of France and...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
USA v. Republic of France and French Line Issue Can USA recover for negligence from Republic of France and French Line? Rule Negligence is a duty owed to a plaintiff, that was beached by the defendant that caused injury to the plaintiff and the injury was from the breach of the duty . assumption of risk - is the plaintiffs voluntary consent to a known danger. foreseeability : reasonably anticipate that damage or injury will probably ensue from acts or omissions. Application USA argues that France and French Line knew the foreseeable dangers of fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate (FGAN) and their very highly flammability, it should not be a surprise that smoking and other fire like substance should be banned and monitored. France and French Line breached the duty by not making any attempt to prohibit smoking. The cigarette or match caused the flame in the FGAN, which resulted in an explosion killing 500 people, 3000 injured and considerable sums of money to victims. But for the cigarette or match, the Grandchamp would
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/28/2012 for the course BLAW 280 taught by Professor Ng during the Spring '11 term at CSU Northridge.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online