Learning Activity Week 2 Report

.docx

School

Bowie State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

001

Subject

Law

Date

Jul 1, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

3

Uploaded by BarristerFreedomKookabura48

Learning Activity Week 2 Report TO:              Winnie James, Ralph Anders FROM:        Aniko McClendon DATE: January 17, 2024 RE:              Clean Negligence Risks and Liabilities   After analyzing the background information regarding Jack’s claim along with this week’s learning resources, Jack has a negligence claim against Client A. I believe this because even though Jack was the one that didn’t check the hallway properly, he was still injured so he still might have a chance to win this claim. Although the background facts does state that Client A’s employee placed the boxes that Jack tripped on before he started vacuuming. I think that this situation would be under comparative negligence. “Under the rule of comparative negligence, damages are apportioned according to the defendant’s degree of culpability”. The court may think that both parties played a part with negligence in this claim. A potential defense that I believe Client A may raise is the fact that Jack failed to thoroughly ensure that the hallway was clear of any obstacles before vacuuming. This defense may come about because Jack should have seen the two boxes that were placed in the hallway by Client A’s employee since it was placed there before Jack began vacuuming. The courts may feel that Jack, the plaintiff also had a responsibility to make sure the area was safe before proceeding to conduct his work duties. Another potential defense could be that even though Jack claimed that he did not notice the boxes, this claim can still be tested with the “but you should have known test” which would be considered an assumption of risk. The reading states that “The difficulty in many cases is to determine the dividing line between subjectivity and objectivity. If the plaintiff had no actual knowledge of the risk, he cannot be held to have assumed it. On the other hand, it is easy to claim that you did not appreciate the danger, and the courts will apply an objective standard of community knowledge”. Given the negligence claim and the potential defenses I believe that Client A should prevail in the lawsuit because Jack’s only defense was that he was injured from the incident, and I don’t think he has enough evidence to support that. I think this situation could’ve been prevented more on his end because if the area was thoroughly checked like he claimed then he would’ve seen the items in the hallway and he also he would have been able to inform Client A that it would need to be moved before vacuuming.
Resources 7.3 Negligence https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_advanced-business-law-and-the-legal-environment/ s10-03-negligence.html
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help