Various situations and scenarios can be discussed in the context of unintentional torts. To state whether the plaintiff is right while trying to impose liability on the defendant, it is necessary to discuss the cases in detail. Much attention should be paid to the fact whether all the elements pointing at torts are presented in cases.
In the first case, the widow of David Harris sued the railroad, while focusing on the idea of negligence. Harris was killed by the train because he had ignored signaling bells and red lights at the train station which warned about the train’s approach. Furthermore, Harris ignored a yellow line on the platform and warnings of the other men at the station. In this situation, the widow’s argument against the railroad cannot be discussed as relevant because David Harris ignored all the warnings prescribed according to the federal railroad laws and programs. It is possible to speak about the case of trespassing which led to the death of Harris (Beatty and Samuelson 153). In this case, the railroad has no duty of due care in relation to Harris because of the man’s ignorance of warnings, assumption of risks, and negligence.
The second case is more controversial. Powers sustained injuries because of replacing the frayed door strap with a nylon rope in the leased truck; the rope broke and caused Powers to fall out. On the one hand, Ryder who leased the truck is not liable for Powers’ injuries because of the superseding cause which interrupted the chain of causes (Rea 36). On the other hand, Powers asked Ryder to fix the door strap several times, and Ryder ignored requests despite duties in relation to Florida Food Service. In this case, it is possible to appeal for discussing Ryder’s guilt in the context of breaching the duty of due care because he failed to fix the door strap and to behave as a ‘reasonable’ person.
Discussing the situation when Davis died because of driving straight into the stalled truck manufactured by General Motors Corp., (GMC), it is possible to note that GMC cannot rely on the summary judgment because a defective alternator manufactured by the company became the factual cause of Davis’s death (Redish 86). In this case, any person could be affected by the failure of the alternator because such a defect could cause accidents on the road and deaths of many people. From this point, it is also possible to speak about the foreseeable harm because such a defect is a regular cause of automobile accidents.
Focusing on the fourth situation, it is possible to state that six-year-old Ann Marie Tamplin was seriously injured while being at Star Lumber because of the roll of vinyl falling. According to the principles of the landowner’s duty and liability, the Tamplin family had the status of ‘invitees’, and Star Lumber should provide the compensatory damages (Beatty and Samuelson 156). Still, Ann cannot request future compensations because the only slight possibility of future problems is predicted by the expert. However, it is important to provide Ann with the appropriate amount of money to restore her health completely, as it was before the received injury. Thus, the focus should be on providing an adequate amount of compensatory damages.
Referring to the analyzed cases, it is possible to state that there are many aspects and details which should be taken into account while discussing tort issues. Much attention should be paid to concluding on the guilt of the defendant in the concrete case and on the level of the caused harm.
Works Cited
Beatty, Jeffrey, and Susan Samuelson. Business Law and the Legal Environment. New York: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
Rea, John. “Should Jury Decide How Judge Would Have Ruled?” Defense Counsel Journal 69.1 (2002): 35-43. Print.
Redish, Martin. “Summary Judgment and the Vanishing Trial: Implications of the Litigation Matrix”. Stanford Law Review 57.5 (2005): 86-94. Print.