{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Critical Thinking Essay

When the backhoe hit a hard object the operator

Info iconThis preview shows page 2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
surroundings. When the backhoe hit a hard object, the operator should have checked to see what it had been before continuing the job. Not only had it hit a gas line, but also, it is assumed that the blast caused a mass amount of property damage on the campus, the machinery itself, and injury on an innocent pedestrian. Prof. Horton should be able to prevail in his lawsuit to an extent. In his defense, he had not made any intention on deliberately getting too close to the construction site. However, it had been wrong for him to purposely attempt to alleviate the employer’s fall by trying to catch him. In regards to negligence, Prof. Horton had breached his own duty of care to protect himself being of physical disability with having bone brittle disease. The first thing Prof. Horton should have done was attempt to flee from the scene rather than what he actually did. Therefore, the plaintiff is liable under comparative negligence for knowingly staying at a dangerous spot at the time. But since the company’s actions had been the actual cause of the incident, the victim should hold much less liability for the situation. Ultimately, Prof. Horton should triumph in this case against the company.
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}