The case in point is an accident that happened to Mr. Geringer, a father of the Geringer family, and his son, on the Wildhorn Ranch. After Mr. Geringer and minor Geringer, the son, drowned in an accident due to the poor condition of the boat and the corresponding equipment on the ranch, Mrs. Geringer filed a case against the owner of the ranch under the pretext of negligence which caused her husband’s death.
As soon as the claim was filed, the defendant made it clear that the diseased did not wear life jackets, which was completely against the rules established in the Wildhorn Ranch, Inc. In addition, the fact that Mr. Geringer used the boat that has been secured to the shore, according to the defendant’s evidence, was also taken into account as a justification for the owner of the Wildhorn Ranch, Inc. In the course of the case, the idea of the corporate alter-ego was also presented to clarify the actions of the Wildhorn Ranch, Inc. owner:
The theory of corporate alter-ego requires plaintiff to show that an individual consistently disregarded the formalities of the corporate form and so dominated the affairs of the corporation, in a manner which injured the plaintiff, that to continue to acknowledge the legal fiction of the corporation would promote injustice and harm public convenience. (Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 2010)
Therefore, it must be taken into account that the defendant had several points for justification. In addition, it is worth noting that the defendant had several motions before and during trial; however, neither of these motions was accepted by the court as legit.
Thus, the court holding, in the result of which the defendant was considered to be the guilty part, can be considered as doubtlessly correct. According to the court decision, the basic principle which made the tipping point in the case was whether the Wildhorn Ranch Inc. should be considered the responsibility of Mr. Watters, the current owner, or not. According to the court’s decision, the principle used to solve the case “… imposes liability on the individual who uses the corporation merely as an instrument for conducting his own personal business or merely to accomplish some ulterior purpose” (Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 2010).
According to Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc. (2010), the main claim the plaintiff laid against the Wildhorn Ranch, Inc. concerned the condition of the equipment and the negligence: “Plaintiffs’ case focused on repairs made a short time prior to the accident and defendants’ knowledge that the boats leaked, filled with water, and became unstable” (Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 2010).
In the given case, the Fed.R. Civ.P. Rule 59, Altering or Amending a Judgment (Rule 59, 1992) was used to deny the defendant’s motion, which meant that the case was considered to be based on the liability premises rather than on simple negligence. As for the case in point, the defendant was considered guilty on the premises of the Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-21-115, which presupposes the liability of the trustee (Warranty of Habitability, 2012).
It is worth noting that in the given case no concurring opinion was given, which means that the opinion of the jury and the court was completely unanimous. Therefore, it must be admitted that the judgment passed by the jury was the one and only means to solve the case.
Reference List
Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc. (2010). Leagle.com. Web.
Rule 59. New trial; altering or amending a judgment (1992). Legal Information Institute. Web.
Warranty of Habitability (2012). Strum College of Law. Web.