Brad's House Fire Case Study

This case pertains to Brad, Tom and a few other parties that are legally involved. On December 15th, an explosion occurred at Brad’s house. This explosion created embers and sparks which reached Tom’s house, who lives two houses down, which caused a fire to irrupt at Tom’s House. The fire caused minor damages to Tom however, there was a fire fighter named Katherine who in attempt to put out the fire, caused significant water damage. Tom and Brad both would like to commence some legal action. Tom would like to commence action against Brad, and other parties such as Katherine, The City, A-1 Furnaces and Patrick. Brad has different claims, he believes that he has done nothing wrong and he should be compensated for his loss. Now with this information …show more content…
Causation is a major issue for Tom, as Brad can claim that it was not his fault that the fire started but rather defective gas valve that was installed caused this explosion. If checking for Remoteness, there is no way Brad could have foreseen that this explosion occurring, or that the fire would spread to Tom’s house. Brad can defend himself by proving Tom was contributory negligent since he left his firewood adjacent to the dwelling, which is not allowed by the city by laws. Also, another argument that Brad can make regarding how Tom’s damages are not his fault is the fact that Tom has no insurance on his house. If Tom had insurance, then the damages would have been covered, and there would be no loss or reason to take legal action against …show more content…
A-1 Furnaces can be held vicariously liable for the actions of Patrick, an employee. Also, Patrick being an employee at A-1 Furnaces, without Patrick being a licensed worker can be hurtful to any case A-1 makes. The negligence claims will have essentially the same elements as the Brad Vs. City case. A-1 had a duty of care to install the valve efficiently which they failed to live up to. Patrick is also held to a higher standard of care since he is considered an experienced individual in the field, and he failed to meet this standard. Causation of the explosion could be placed onto the failure to perform final inspections on the valve and Patrick’s actions cannot be considered remote since it is reasonably foreseeable that a defective valve can lead to an unwanted outcome. Damages are obvious, due to the explosion. The only defense A-1 really has is a contributory negligence claim that Brad left is oven on. However as stated previously, this is a void argument as anything could have sparked the explosion since the main concern was the leak, not the oven being left on. This weak argument combined with the fact that A-1 had an unlicensed employee on the job, it can be stated with high probability that Brad will be successful in this