Liability Risks Paper Example

Negligence is bound to occur in most cases where people do not follow the established laws in the place of work. Two people have to be involved for negligence to be established, where one party do not follow the outlined laws resulting in the injury of the other. To avoid negligence, both parties are mostly guided by a contract, outlining the terms of operations and consequences such as paying the damages. The following work will show a case of negligence by two parties and how the cases were presented and payment of the damages.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A. Negligence can be defined as failing to exercise the care standards as required by the law so that people can be protected from unreasonable harm. There are four elements of negligence, and they are legal claims of an essential component. In a court of law, it is essential to establish the four elements or either a compensation for the injuries will not be secured. The duty of care element is determined with the recognition of relationship between two parties. One of the parties has a legal obligation to behave in a certain manner towards the other party (Owen, 2006).

Breach is the other element, which happens when on the party does not fulfill the duty they have towards the other. An employee, for example, may breach their duty by not performing the duties that are expected of them. Causation element of negligence describes the actual cause or proximate cause. The actual cause is seen when the breach of duty happened, and the person who sustained injuries would not have sustained them. Proximate cause element illustrates the injuries sustained are associated to the breach of the safety laws. Damages element is where the injuries can be covered with monetary compensation. The compensation is dependent on the extent of the damage.

In the case of Ed and Michael, Michael is guilty of negligence. Michael had not received proper training on operating machinery which means he was not supposed to touch anything until he knew how to use the machinery. Despite knowing that he could not use the machinery effectively, Michael decided to try lifting a pallet of heavy boxes, and they fell all over crushing Ed who was unpacking stock, and it resulted in severe injuries. It was negligence of Michael as he did not consider the harm that would result if he did not handle the machinery as required.

B. According to Kelley, (2001), contributory negligence describes the injured party failing to act prudently, thus contributing to the injury which they sustained. The injured party also cats negligence as they do not take the precautions required to prevent any type of injury. In contributory negligence can be determined, the responsibility of the defendant to pay the damages may be reduced or eliminated. Michael's attorney believed that they could establish contributory negligence, then the outcome of the case would be influenced greatly. I agree with him since Michael would not be required to pay all the damages to cover the injuries that Michael sustained or he would not be required to pay at all. Ed was busy in the same place unpacking stock, and if could have warned Michael against touching any of the machinery, then the accident would not have happened. It is clear that Ed was negligent as he did not tell Michael the safety rules he was supposed to follow. Therefore, Michael cannot be blamed entirely on the accident.

C. When comparative negligence is established on the part of the company, the outcome of the case will change. Michael will pay the damages, but the company will take the responsibility. The company is supposed to have strict rules that should be used by the employees. The rules should be written and printed on every room so that employees can read before they use any equipment. Also, any visitors should be debriefed about any rules such as not touching any equipment if they have not been trained in how to use them. If the company had not warned Michael, then it would take the responsibility of the injuries that Ed sustained.

D. The company is liable for damages. It is clear that Michael is not trained enough yet he was trying to machinery. If the company had warned Michael, he would have been careful and not touched anything while Ed was busy unpacking the stock. He would have waited patiently so that he could be given instructions on what he was supposed to do. Lack of knowledge on what would have machinery would cause may have made Michael attempt to lift the heavy boxes; he did not know that there might have been a way in which the boxes were supposed to be lifted. Therefore, the company was responsible.

Conclusion

Negligence can be avoided by having specific rules that each party should follow. When two parties are forming a working relationship, they should spell out the rules that should be applied and the implication of failure to follow the rules. When one party is negligence, and it is proven in the court of law, they should pay the damages for the injured party.

References

Owen, D. G. (2006). The five elements of negligence. Hofstra L. Rev., 35, 1671.

Kelley, P. J. (2001). Restating Duty, breach, and proximate cause in negligence Law: Descriptive Theory and the rule of law. Vand. L. Rev., 54, 1039.