Clark vs. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company Essay

Case Analysis is an analysis of a case using a number of separate facts. The case study must be able to put the underlying facts that may occur within the whole duration of a court case proceeding. In addition to that, the case study also analyses the ruling that was given by the court with regard to the facts that were presented in the court during the whole duration of the court proceedings (Ritter 6). The case analysis must also be able to analyze the several aspects of the law and how they are applied to the case that is involved.

On the other hand, a case analysis can also be described as a full analysis of a case proceeding to be able to analyze the most probable outcome of a court proceeding. In this case, a case study can be used to be able to make out the most probable outcome from the facts that are presented in the court proceedings. A case study can also analyze the facts and evidence that is presented in the court and in turn can be able to tell if the most probable outcome according to the proceedings of the courts (Ritter 6).

Thesis Statement

With reference to the given question, this paper will conduct a case analysis of the case Clark vs. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. In the case study, this paper will provide a summary of the facts presented in the court. In addition to that, this paper will provide the plaintiff’s version of the facts and the law with a recitation according to the law.

On the other hand, this paper will provide a brief history of the court resolution of the matter prior to its hearing in the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri and will also provide a detailed analysis of the finding and the holdings of the Supreme Court of Missouri. This paper will analyze whether the court was correct in its analysis of the matter according to the law. Lastly, this paper will advise whether the court’s holding would still prevail today.

Summary of the Undisputed Facts

According to the case file, Clark was an employee of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company and was injured during his line of duty. Clark as an employee of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company was obligated to follow every instruction that he was given by his superiors which included his foreman. On this fateful day, Clark was injured when he fell as he tried to escape from a train wreck he was working on with the orders from his foreman (Smith 12).

The fact that he was following the orders of his superiors was factual enough to know that he had every right to complain and demand damages from Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company because he was not acting in his own self but was acting on behalf of the company in question. During the court proceedings, it was found that Clark had never encountered another steer before and as such had no idea of the dangers that were involved and this was factual enough to demand damages from Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company who were sorely responsible for his welfare while working for them.

On the other hand, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company argued that Clark had ideas of how to avoid any unaware risks and decided to ignore these risks and went ahead which in turn led to the injuries he sustained. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company argued that the injuries that were sustained were as a result of the ignorance of Clark with regard to a steer of which he had not encountered during his other times as an employee of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company and as such demanded that the case be dismissed in the fact that the Clark acted on his ignorance which led to the injuries that were sustained.

On the other hand, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company argued that the knowledge that had been acquired by Clark before was enough for him to be able to tell of any underlying risks and as such he would have been able to avoid any injury during his work at a steer but instead decided to ignore these facts stating the he had never been in an encounter with a steer before. It is from this fact that Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company demanded that the case be dismissed in that Clark was injured due to his own ignorance and as such the company was not liable to anything (Johnson 14).

Plaintiff’s Version of the Facts and Law

The plaintiff in this case Clark was injured while working for Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company and as result demands for damages for his injuries. Clark was demanding for damages in that at the time of sustaining the injuries, he was working in Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company from the orders of his superiors in this case his foreman. The law has a provision which states that if an employee is injured in the line of duty he has a right to demand for damages from the company in question.

In this case, Clark has the right to demand for damages from Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company in that at the time he was injured he was working for the company. Clark was working at a steer in which he had never worked before and thereby did not understand any underlying risks that may be involved while working at a steer and as a result was injured as he worked. The law also states that employees of companies must always be informed of any dangers that may be involved in the line of duty.

In this case, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company did not inform Clark of any dangers that may be involved while working at a steer. Clark had never worked at a steer before and he had no idea of any underlying risks that may be involved and it was the obligation of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company to inform him of the risks and show him how to avoid them of which they did not. This in turn led to the injuries that were sustained as he was working at the steer and thereby demanded to be compensated for damages as he was not informed of any underlying risks.

On the other hand, the law states that while an employee is working in a company, it is their sole responsibility to make sure that he / she is safe from any harm. In this case, Clark was ordered by his foreman to go to the steer. The foreman knew of the dangers that were involved in the steer and did not inform Clark of these dangers and as a result he was injured as he was working at the steer.

This means that the company will be held responsible for any incidences that may be involved during the work and in this case Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company is supposed to be held responsible for the injuries that were sustained by Clark and therefore Clark had every right to demand for damages from the company.

Defendant’s Version of the Facts and Law

The defendant in this case Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company is the company that was responsible for Clark as he was working at the steer which led to his injury. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company argue that Clark was injured in the line of duty but this was due to fact that he ignored the underlying risks that were involved which in turn led to his injuries.

In addition to that, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company argues that the law clearly states that one is bound to compensation if he / she followed every rule and regulation that has been set by the company in question. In this case, Clark did not take into consideration all the risks that may be involved in the steer and this in turn led to the injuries he sustained. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company argues that if Clark had taken into consideration all the underlying risks that were involved in the steer he would have gotten injured and it means that Clark is to blame for the injuries.

On the other hand, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company argues that Clark had enough knowledge about the steer than it knew and if he had taken into consideration this information then he would have gotten injured in the steer.

Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company argues that Clark ignored the fact that he had enough information about the steer which he would have used. The company goes ahead to argue that the company had provided some of the information about the steer and it was Clark’s obligation to find the information that was necessary which he ignored and which later caused injuries to him.

History of the Court Resolution of the Matter

The court had taken into consideration all the facts that were presented in the court proceedings which included the fact that Clark was an employee of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company and was injured while in the line of duty for the company and as such he was obligated to get compensation considering that he was working under the orders of the foreman.

On the other hand, the court took into consideration that Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company had provided Clark with some information that he would use in the steer and his injuries were caused because of the ignorance that he had. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company continued to say that it was the obligation of Clark to find more information with regard to the steer which he did not bother to find and as such led to his injuries.

The court also took into consideration the fact that Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company had withheld some information that was vital from Clark and also to in the possibility that if the information was offered to Clark then it would have prevented his injuries from the steer. In addition to that, the court also took into consideration the fact that Clark had never encountered a steer before and thereby had no idea of how to handle it and the company had the obligation of show Clark how to handle a steer which they did not which led to his injuries caused by the steer.

Detailed Analysis of the Findings and Holdings

The Supreme Court found that Clark was unable to make out a case because he had more information than Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company knew and if Clark would have taken the information into account then he would not have gotten injured. The court also found that due to the ignorance that Clark had which made him not take into consideration all the risks that would be involved and this in turn led to the injuries that he sustained.

In addition to that, the court found that Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company had not provided Clark with the information that was necessary and this resulted to Clark sustaining injuries from the steer. The court found that if Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company had provided Clark with all the information then he would be aware of the underlying risks and this would have resulted in him not getting injured by the steer.

Court Ruling Analysis According To the Law of the Day

The court ruled in favor of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company claiming that it had done its obligation of providing the necessary information that would be used by Clark with regard to the steer. According to that law of the day, any employee of a company who is injured in the line of duty is bound to compensation which would mean that if the court had followed the law to the letter that they would have ruled in favor of Clark would was injured in the line of duty while working for Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company under the orders of his foreman.

Also according to the law, any employee working in a company is obligated to all the information that is necessary in terms of risks and this would mean that Clark was obligated to every piece of information that Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company with regard to the steer which would mean that if this information was passed on then Clark would have been more careful when dealing with a steer (Wernet 52).

If the Court’s holding would still prevail today

The court ruling would not prevail today because Clark being an employee of Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company had every right to information about the risks involved in the handling of a steer which Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company did not disclose which later led to the injuries sustained.

In addition to that, every employee who is injured while working under the orders of his superiors is bound to compensation in that the superiors must outline all the underlying risks that are involved. In this case, Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company did not outline all the underlying risks and this in turn led to the injuries sustained by Clark.

Works Cited

Johnson, Thomas. Railroad Reports, London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995. Print.

Ritter, Klaus. Case Analysis, CA: California University Press, 2009. Print.

Smith, Frank. The Texas civil appeals reports, New York, NY: Sage, 2001. Print.

Wernet, John. Case analysis and fundamentals of legal writing, London, UK: John Wiley and Sons, 2005. Print.