The law of tort, is defined as “a civil wrong other than a breach of contract” (Lee Reed, 2013, p.289). It is a law that focuses more on civil cases than it does criminal, but at times cases can be both. The law of tort has three categories, intentional, negligence, and strict. In the case of Alice versus University Heights Pizza and employee Donald, the case is considered a negligence tort, based on the incident of Donald causing injury to the health of Alice, with the company vehicle, due to driving recklessly.
University Height’s pizza has argued that they are not responsible for the injuries in which Alice sustained, from the reckless fast driving of their employee Donald. Although University Height’s pizza knew of Donald’s prior history, they feel that he is solely responsible for the incident, because he was the one driving the vehicle to a destination that was not related to work. By not taking liability to Alice, University Height’s argument is nonconduct, making them knowledgeable of Donald’s fast driving, but not their responsibility to warn Alice or other drivers of it. What University Height’s pizza needs to realize is that although the destination was not work related, and they physically did not drive the vehicle, …show more content…
Although University Heights did not drive the vehicle that hit Alice’s car, they are responsible for not terminating Donald after the previous times he was caught speeding and deviating from delivery to visit his girlfriend. Donald got into the accident while on company time, making the business equally responsible for his actions. Alice’s case against Donald and University Heights is based on negligence. Donald lacked the care to change his driving patterns, and University Heights lacked the care to change their employees. Therefore, both defendants remain liable for the accident that injured Alice and left her with medical bills and the inability to
University Height’s pizza has argued that they are not responsible for the injuries in which Alice sustained, from the reckless fast driving of their employee Donald. Although University Height’s pizza knew of Donald’s prior history, they feel that he is solely responsible for the incident, because he was the one driving the vehicle to a destination that was not related to work. By not taking liability to Alice, University Height’s argument is nonconduct, making them knowledgeable of Donald’s fast driving, but not their responsibility to warn Alice or other drivers of it. What University Height’s pizza needs to realize is that although the destination was not work related, and they physically did not drive the vehicle, …show more content…
Although University Heights did not drive the vehicle that hit Alice’s car, they are responsible for not terminating Donald after the previous times he was caught speeding and deviating from delivery to visit his girlfriend. Donald got into the accident while on company time, making the business equally responsible for his actions. Alice’s case against Donald and University Heights is based on negligence. Donald lacked the care to change his driving patterns, and University Heights lacked the care to change their employees. Therefore, both defendants remain liable for the accident that injured Alice and left her with medical bills and the inability to