Introduction
Ruth, a worker at Flowers Inc., is tasked by her supervisor to deliver flowers and recklessly parks her car on a steep hill without setting the parking breaks. Her car rolls, breaking a power line, creating sparks igniting grass fire. The fire spreads to a petrol station a mile away with a tanker offloading gasoline and causes an explosion that injures a passing motorist, Jim. The factual scenario presents a lawsuit by Jim to recover damages from Flowers Inc. Analysis of principles of law and critical facts establish that Jim cannot succeed in negligence litigation to recover damages from Flowers Inc.
Areas and Principles of Law
Principles of law pertinent to the case study include quit facit per alium facit per se, a legal maxim in vicarious liability, proximate cause, strict liability, and duty of care negligence. The rationale for quit facit per alium facit per se in vicarious liability is that if one authorizes another person to carry on a particular duty, they are the chief agents of the operation (Huberman, 2021). The duty of care is the responsibility to take reasonable caution and care to avoid causing harm to others (Knobe & Shapiro, 2021).
Key Facts
Ruth was acting on behalf of Flowers Inc. when the accident happened. Ruth leaves the car on a steep hill without using the parking brakes. The car rolled downhill and hit a power line that lit the grass. The fire spreads a mile away before causing an explosion that injures Jim.
Analysis
Argument: First, Since Ruth acted on behalf of her employer during the accident, Flowers Inc. is liable for any tort she committed in the line of duty. Secondly, Ruth could have prevented the car from rolling downhill, making her negligence foreseeable and thus liable for breaching the duty of care (Huberman, 2021). Counterargument: Applying the legal concept of strict liability, the gas station is the proximal cause of Jim’s injury for not putting up necessary measures to mitigate the explosion risk (Knobe & Shapiro, 2021).
Conclusion
Ruth acting on behalf of Flowers Inc., could not foresee the explosion that injured Jim and hence cannot bear the responsibility for the damages on the grounds of proximal cause. Therefore, Jim cannot recover damages from Flowers’ Inc.
References
Huberman, P. (2021). A Theory of Vicarious Liability for Autonomous-machine-caused Harm.Osgoode Hall LJ, 58, 233. Web.
Knobe, J., & Shapiro, S. (2021). Proximate cause explained. The University of Chicago Law Review, 88(1), 165-236. Web.