BUSINESS LAW QUESTION Amy walked under a Starbucks on King street where construc
ID: 450877 • Letter: B
Question
BUSINESS LAW QUESTION
Amy walked under a Starbucks on King street where construction workers were fixing a window. Amy thought the rope looked weak, but figured the workers knew what they were doing. One day on the way to work she walked under it even though it was a restricted zone, but there were no signs. The glass fell and shattered in front of her and damages cars parked on the street. Amy had severe injuries. What are the torts and defenses? Who can be a defendant? Explain who is in the wrong and why.
Explanation / Answer
This case involves an incidental tort where one party carelessly causes an accident.In this type of tort one party owes a duty of care to another,fails to meet that level of care and that faliure caused a tangible harm or personal injury to that another person.In this case Amy is the plaintiff.
In this case the main defence that can be heard from the defendant's side is based on plaintiff's role in the accident.The defendants may claim that Amy knowingly walked into a restricted zone.So Amy is partially blaimed for the accident that causes personal injury to her.
In this case the property owner,whose windows were being fixed by the workers, can be a defendant.Because it is the duty of the property owner to maintain a safe condition,and the owner should act reasonably in maintaining those conditions.
In my opinion,in this case,the defendant is wrong because he was naeglecting his duty of maintaining a safe condition whlie the fixing work is going on.Again there was no sign of danger put by the defendant as to indicate that the area was restricted.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.