Business Tort and Contract Law
Question 1
I.
Dam Good as a business entity may be legally liable for the death of the pilot and the four passengers on board under ordinary and strict liability negligence. If the elements of these heads of tortious liability can be proved on a preponderance of evidence or on a balance of probabilities, then the estates of these victims could successfully claim from Dam Goods. According to Owen, in order to successfully prove liability in negligence, plaintiff must establish or adduce evidence tending to prove the presence of a duty of care, a breach or violation of that and a consequent loss, damage, death, harm or injury to the plaintiff (1673). In establishing the existence of a duty of care, the decision …show more content…
The estates of the deceased victims may rely on the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson to argue that Hughes Aviation is liable for the deaths. According to Lord Atkin in this case in his famous dicta of the neighbor principle where he stated that manufacturers of products may be held liable for defects in their products when the products are meant to reach the consumer or final user in the form in which they left the manufacturer’s place of business. Unfortunately, this is not the case here and Hughes Aviation may escape liability. This is because, from the facts, we are told that “Dam Goods team of top-of-the-line trained mechanics ha[d] rebuilt the engines of all the helicopters that are used to conduct the tours.” Thus, it may be argued that the helicopters were not in the same form in which they left the supplier or producer, Hughes Aviation. Moreover, for strict liability, that is liability without proof of fault, to succeed, the plaintiff must establish that the product was defective when it left the supplier or manufacturer; further that the defect was caused by the producer’s negligence and that caused the plaintiff …show more content…
Under this type of liability, any act or omission by an agent can be attributed to their master or principal who bears the liability. An agent under the law of agency is not personally responsible for acts or omissions against third parties to a contract so long as they are duly authorized to act on behalf of and represent the principal employer. Liability only falls on the agent in situations where it can be proved that the agent went out of their own frolics or beyond their scope of employment in a contract with a third party (McCarthy 7). Further, in Scott v Davis (2000), it was held that the agent is only liable if they were an independent contractor which is not the case here. Hence, the fact that the real estate agent knew or should have known of the zoning and plumbing issues will be attributed to the principal who is Kripke (Jennings
Question 1
I.
Dam Good as a business entity may be legally liable for the death of the pilot and the four passengers on board under ordinary and strict liability negligence. If the elements of these heads of tortious liability can be proved on a preponderance of evidence or on a balance of probabilities, then the estates of these victims could successfully claim from Dam Goods. According to Owen, in order to successfully prove liability in negligence, plaintiff must establish or adduce evidence tending to prove the presence of a duty of care, a breach or violation of that and a consequent loss, damage, death, harm or injury to the plaintiff (1673). In establishing the existence of a duty of care, the decision …show more content…
The estates of the deceased victims may rely on the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson to argue that Hughes Aviation is liable for the deaths. According to Lord Atkin in this case in his famous dicta of the neighbor principle where he stated that manufacturers of products may be held liable for defects in their products when the products are meant to reach the consumer or final user in the form in which they left the manufacturer’s place of business. Unfortunately, this is not the case here and Hughes Aviation may escape liability. This is because, from the facts, we are told that “Dam Goods team of top-of-the-line trained mechanics ha[d] rebuilt the engines of all the helicopters that are used to conduct the tours.” Thus, it may be argued that the helicopters were not in the same form in which they left the supplier or producer, Hughes Aviation. Moreover, for strict liability, that is liability without proof of fault, to succeed, the plaintiff must establish that the product was defective when it left the supplier or manufacturer; further that the defect was caused by the producer’s negligence and that caused the plaintiff …show more content…
Under this type of liability, any act or omission by an agent can be attributed to their master or principal who bears the liability. An agent under the law of agency is not personally responsible for acts or omissions against third parties to a contract so long as they are duly authorized to act on behalf of and represent the principal employer. Liability only falls on the agent in situations where it can be proved that the agent went out of their own frolics or beyond their scope of employment in a contract with a third party (McCarthy 7). Further, in Scott v Davis (2000), it was held that the agent is only liable if they were an independent contractor which is not the case here. Hence, the fact that the real estate agent knew or should have known of the zoning and plumbing issues will be attributed to the principal who is Kripke (Jennings