Nancy vs. RPI Firm Case Study

Cause of Action - Strict Liability of Activity

The case underlined between Nancy, and the RPI firm is pegged on principle on the cause of action that touches on the strict liability activity on the part of the fir that is believed to have flouted the law by taking the responsibility of their effects on the residential area of the plaintiff. The firm brought about a lot of damages to the lives and the health of Nancy by carrying out the testing ability of their engines in the neighborhood. Nancy being the plaintiff has no obligation whatsoever to show any form of intentions or negligent in the entire process of harm. The plaintiff has the commitment of filing the personal injury lawsuit against the RPI under very strict directions over the law that the plaintiff suffered some injury, and this must have triggered some liability on the side of the plaintiff (Hines, 2018). The law governing this kind of tort is wholly dependent on the law of the state, and then there is the need for proper consultations regarding the personal injuries lawyers just before the actual process of filing this case to avoid any chances of misleading information that would act to the advantage of the firm under defence.

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

Save 25%

Theory of Recovery - Private Nuisance

Based on the effects of the action on blasting by RPI, the plaintiffs have suffered some significant damages in their lives and thus the need for compensatory measures on the same. The compensations, in this case, would come in two primary forms that are the compensatory damages and the punitive damages. The compensatory damages would be awarded on the payment of the costs caused by the RPI in cases of its nuisance practices. These compensations could be applied to the plaintiff based on the factors on the perpetual injunction. Injunctions, in this case, will only be permitted if the plaintiffs are in a position to prove for the existence of the nuisance by the defendant. On the other hand, the plaintiff may require the defendant to relocate its operations to a location that is far away from the residential plots to help reduce the chances of causing to the same residents (Daye & Morris, 2018). This kind of compensation would be considered as the punitive damage compensation. The punitive compensation aims at modifying the dangerous activities rendered by the firm in a bid to try and make the environment in which the communities live in become more appealing and supportive to their recovery of health.

Community vs. RPI

Theory of Recovery - Public Nuisance

The aspect that involves both the community and the RPI is mainly on the concerns raised by the public and would then surface in the corridors of justice under the public nuisance policies. The defendant in this case vehemently interfered with the peaceful utilisation of the public utilities in the public domain especially the use of the recreational activities enjoyed by the communities in one way or the other. On the same note, it is the responsibility of the defendant to help understand the fact that it caused some harm and inconveniences to the public and this has a significant effect to the common good of all in the community (Hines, 2018). Furthermore, it is vital to not only the state where the public nuisance takes place has the responsibility of bringing out the case and claim the same effect.

However, a person such as in this case with Nancy can bring a claim on public nuisance only if the person has valid evidence showing that she suffered specific harm based on the process of basting carried by the firm in question. Most common recovery options used in this process include the recovery of the land that the community might have suffered in the process of the firm using their public property as a place for blasting the engines. Four factors are deemed essential in the determination of the harm and the benefit in this kind of case. First, there is the need to determine whether or not the action of the defendant is accurately executed and applied in the entire process of events (Daye & Morris, 2018). There is also the need to understand and value the capital values of both the plaintiffs' and the defendant's properties under this case. The cost the defendant would incur in case of compensatory measures and finally, the benefits that would give the plaintiff room to continue living in the area.

Defenses and Remedies

In a legal suit, the case under study applies to the strict liability principles in that the situation is in line with the provisions in the same law. The firm in question engaged the tenant in inherently dangerous activity by creating disturbance in her health and property by testing the engines used by the firm near the plaintiff. Several factors can be used in the determination as to whether the case in question is inherently dangerous or not. For example, the case under study is an inherently dangerous activity to the plaintiff in that the firm employed the act of testing their explosives in the surrounding without proper certification to carry out the same process. The effect of the engines led to the deterioration of the health of Nancy who is the primary plaintiff in this case (Hines, 2018). Nancy has experienced severe health implications where she has suffered much loss in her hearing senses and has also constricted the aspect of high blood pressure which the medics have claimed that can easily terminate her life under sudden and acute condition.

Basis of Unreasonableness

The case under study is considered inherently dangerous based on the fact that the RPI firm had the choice of testing their blasts in areas that had minimal population. However, the firm decided to carry out the explosion in the residential area where a considerable number of people were inhabiting at the time of the blast. The firm is thus liable for the damages caused on Nancy and other residents in this area based on the health concern that has been raised so far in a court of law. Therefore, the case inclines itself on the theory of the strict tort (Daye & Morris, 2018). The strict liability action can negate any possible claim of proper monitoring of the process by the firm. This idea is based on the fact that as much as the firm may have monitored the operations taking place during the blasting process, no provision in the law can cushion them from prosecution based on the idea that some persons have suffered injuries as a result of the blasting episode.

Legal Analysis

Based on the issues linked to the case, it would be significant to underscore the fact that there are three factors needed to help establish the case a strict liability offence. First, the RPI must have carried out an activity that is considered inherently dangerous to the lives of the residents of the area in which the blast was carried out. The plaintiff must be in a position to show that the events that unfolded after the explosion affected the lives and the health of the residents. The plaintiff where in this case is both the members of the community and Nancy must show that they suffered some harm based on the injury from the fumes produced during the blasting exercise. Most of the disclaimers that could be levied by the defendant are considered to be invalid by the courts based on the fact that these are against the public policies in the same arena (Brown & Meiners, 2018). The court, in this case, would then uphold the case against the RPI in that the firm is found guilty of exposing dangerous fumes to the residents in the abject disguise of testing the explosives in the same scenario.

As a means of finding proper evidence and correct articulation of the law process, the plaintiff has the responsibility of finding the strict liability theory to help in the recovery of the losses encountered in the entire process of the firm's blasting in the process of testing machines in the community. The court may render the compensations based on the health injuries on the plaintiffs but may rescind to provide final reports on the benefit on the properties lost because of inadequate evidence to help render the claims viable or not under the US systems of law (Brown & Meiners, 2018). The remedies in such a case would include the actual objectives of the lawsuit where the personal lawyer may help the plaintiff in the understanding of the requirements of the law under study in a broad manner of events.

References

Brown, J. C., & Meiners, R. E. (2018). Common Law Approaches to Pollution and Toxic Tort Litigation. In Cutting Green Tape (pp. 99-128). Routledge.

Daye, C. E., & Morris, M. W. (2018). North Carolina Law of Torts. LexisNexis.

Hines, N. W. (2018). Here We Go Again: A Third Legislative Attempt to Protect Polluting Iowa CAFOs from Neighbors' Nuisance Actions.