Question 1

Under the tort law, Ralph Cramdon is liable for damaging the car and the electric utility pole. It was because of his negligence that the car rolled down the hill. Though the spikes from the broken electric line started a small fire, it spread due to excess petroleum deposits in the streets, which was negligence by the local authority. Again, the explosion caused by the presence of dynamites on the warehouse caused the injury on the children. Ralph is not liable for the injuries since it was the negligence of the former warehouse owners for living the dynamites behind. Ralph is only liable for the damages his negligence directly caused which are the damage on the car and electric pole.

Question 2

When suing the Pyrotime Co., Friendly will use the theory that the company bought a substandard item that went astray and was unable to measure the safe zone accurately. When suing the city of Winchester, Friendly will argue that the city contracted an incompetent company to setup and operated the fireworks display. In addition, when suing the manufacturer of the fireworks, Friendly will argue that the company manufactured substandard goods and then sold them for use in the public. The company manufactured a shell that went astray, which is not a normal case. The company failed in its quality control of the product.

Question 3

One of the torts that committed against Mark was defamation. Falcon called the university’s president even though it was not his duty to inform the university that Mark was a thief. Falcons’ words to the University’s president were malicious with the intention of destroying Marks career. Again, Falcon assaulted Mark when he forced him back to the store. In addition, he locked him in a small unlit, poorly ventilated room instead of just questioning him to determine Marks guiltiness. Falcon could just have questioned Mark the way the police did.

Question 4

Julie was injured in the course of duty. The county education board had approved the emergency practice and was coordinating the drill. The county education board thus owed the duty of care. It was to ensure the safety of all personnel involved in the drill.  The fact that Julie was injured in the line of duty places the liability at the hands of the county board. Julie’s hospital bills and lost income should be taken care of by the county board. The law applying, in this case, is tort law under the workers compensation. Julie was injured as she fulfilled part of her employment duties thus entitled to workers compensation.

Question 5

When suing the company, Nell will claim that the company owed the duty of care in ensuring that the toys were safe. She will try to prove that the company manufactured a non-safe product. On the other hand, the company argument will be that it fulfilled its duty of care. The company had taken the precaution of doing extensive testing to prove the product safe. Where the company could not fulfill the duty of care, it had chocking and parental supervision warnings to the packaging. The company will argue that it fulfilled its mandate. The company will win because it was Nell’s negligence of not supervising her child as advised that led to the child’s death. She allowed the child to chew toy though it was not meant for that.

 
Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?