Analysis of John Fay Accident - Assignment Example

Ureta 1 Answers for Assignment 1. Answer :a. tort 2. Plaintiffs are: a. Terry and Barbara Mann b. The owner of the school bus c. The parents of the two children who were in the hospital d. The state through the investigators e. The parents of Amanda and Ashley Finn 3. a. Defendant 1: Alvin Wilkerson, the driver of the truck who plowed into the car and school bus b. the owner of the truck , Crete Carrier Corp., the Lincoln, Neb., trucking company 4. Answer: the Florida State Court would have jurisdiction over the civil case if the complaint filed was for tort and the amount of damage is $5,001/$15,000 and the parties have sufficient contact with the state of Florida. a.) Answer: The Court acquires personal jurisdiction over the plaintiff through the pleadings filed such as complaint and serve the defendants the summons and copy of the complaint. The court has jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiffs since they are residents of the state and they have connection to the geographic area on which the court sits. b.) Answer: State Court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant by serving him the summons and complaint. Ureta 2 c.) Answer: The court acquires personal jurisdiction over Crete Carrier Corp., the Lincoln, Neb., trucking company by serving it the summons and copy of the complaint and by the application of the long arm statute. 5. Answer: The principal, which is the Crete Carrier Corp., the Lincoln, Neb., is primarily liable because under the agency law, the principal is liable for all the acts of the agent which are within the authority usually confided to an agent of that character, notwithstanding limitations, as between the principal and the agent, put upon that authority. The driver was acting within the authority confided to him by the principal when the accident happened. 6. Answer: As an independent contractor, the driver of the truck is primarily liable because the employer has no control how the work is done provided the result was delivered to him. 7. Answer. a. the plaintiffs can collect the entire judgment from either defendant 8. Answer: Punitive damages are in order in this case for this is a tort case of a highhanded nature. 9. Answer: a. The plaintiffs would divide the punitive damages among themselves. 10. a. yes Explanation: In cases of accident, the defendant may be sued criminally and civilly. In the tort case, the defendant is liable for damages while in criminal case, he is liable for the deaths of the 7 children. b. Answer: No Explanation: The trucking company, which is a corporation may only be civilly sued by the plaintiffs in order to recover damages. A corporation cannot be held criminally responsible for any tortuous act of its employee’s for it cannot be put to jail. Ureta 3 PART B Section 1. Article Identification: Title of the Article: State investigates Slope accident that crushed worker (PINNED: Alaska West Express worker, Fay, suffers crushed chest) Name of Publication: Anchorage Daily News retrieved from http://www.adn.com/2009/11/02/997243/state-investigates-slope-accident.html Date of Publication: November 2, 2009 Article Summary Just before midnight of October 27, 2009, a worker of Arctic Slope Regional, Inc., named John Fay was pinned between a tractor truck and a semi-trailer. An employee of Alaska West Express Inc. a trucking subsidiary of the Anchorage-based Lynden Inc drove the truck. Arctic Slope confirmed that Fay who remained in critical care at Providence Alaska Medical Center works for the company. Preliminary information gathered was that the truck either backed into John Fay or ran him over. It operates divisions in petroleum refining and marketing, government technical services, energy services and construction. It was not immediately clear what division of the company Fay worked for but Steve Standley, chief of enforcement at Alaska Occupational Safety and Health, said preliminary reports are that he was a laborer. Section 2: Information About the Type of Case State Court or Federal Court? Answer: State Court Ureta 4 Information derived from the Article: The investigating agency for the accident is the State Department of Labor. And based on the injury incurred by John Fay which crushed his chest, he may sue the Alaska West Express, Inc., or the Anchorage-based Lynden Inc. for tortuous act of the truck driver for personal injury and to recover damages. Section 3: Information About Jurisdiction This court (state court ) has jurisdiction over the subject matter because the action is a civil case for torts and personal injury inflicted upon the person of John Fay by the driver of the truck. The case that may arise does not belong to the cases under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This Court (state court) has jurisdiction over the plaintiff in this case because he has minimum contact in the geographical area in which the state court sits. The Court has jurisdiction over the plaintiff by virtue of the complaint filed against the tort-feasors. This court (state court) has jurisdiction over each of the defendants because: the Alaska West Express, Inc., has minimum contact in the geographical area in which the court sits. The driver of the truck (presumed to be a citizen of the state) also has minimum contact required by the state court in order for it to have jurisdiction over his person. The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation is doing business in the state. And the BP, oil giant that operates Prudhoe Bay or Deadhorse is a company doing business in the state. Hence, they have had minimum contacts with the state in which the court sits. Ureta 5 Section 4: Identify the Parties and the Issues Case: tort. Plaintiff: John Fay Plaintiff’s allegations: BP, the oil giant that operates Prudhoe Bay is liable for violation of the work-safety regulations and standard to avoid injury in the workplace. It was negligent and failed to exercise proper management supervision over the contract companies, which have workers on duty in the premises, especially over Alaska West Express, Inc., subsidiary of Anchorage-based Lynden, Inc. whose driver has backed (or ran over) the plaintiff. Alaska West Express. Inc., has failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family required from the employer company over its employees. It was negligent in supervising its driver to avoid accidents. It has failed to exercise strict diligence in the selection and hiring of its drivers that resulted to this accident. Damages that plaintiff may seek are: 1. Pain and suffering damages 2. Permanent injury/disfigurement damages 3. Punitive damages 4. Mental anguish damages 5. Damages for lost wages 6. medical bills In order to win in his tort case, the plaintiff must prove: 1. that the driver of the truck has acted within the authority intimated to him by his employer so the plaintiff can make the Alaska West Express, Inc. liable for damages. Ureta 6 2. The plaintiff must prove negligence of BP in ensuring the safety of the workers at the plant. 3. He must prove the elements of negligence which are: The plaintiff was owned a Duty of Care, there was a Breach of that duty either by failing to do or doing something, the plaintiff suffered Damage as a result of that breach (Causation) and that the damage was not too Remote and the plaintiff must be compensated. 4. In order for the plaintiff to recover damages for example in medical bills, plaintiff must prove at the trial the following: authentication, reasonableness and necessity. 5. On his claim for personal injury, which is for his crushed chest, the plaintiff must prove it by presenting the doctor who examined him and the physician will testify that the injury sustained by him was caused by the truck and related to the accident/tort. 6. In connection with his claim for lost of wages, he must prove by simply extrapolating the total wages expected to have been earned (but for the injury) to age 65, and multiply it by the vocational disability to determine the lost wages. The standard of proof necessary the court will apply to determine that plaintiff has proven his case is preponderance of evidence. Defendants in the case: 1. Driver of the truck that backed John Fay 2. BP, an oil giant that operates Prudhoe bay 3. Alaska West Express, Inc. Ureta 7 Defenses of the Defendants: 1. Defendant BP may raise as defense that there was no breach of duty to maintain work-safety in the premises and that it has not remised in its duty to supervise the contract companies which have workers in the plant. 2. Alaska West Express, Inc., may raise as its defense that the driver of the truck has acted beyond the authority given to him, hence, it is not primarily liable for damages 3. the driver of the truck may raise the defense of vicarious liability of the employer-company 4. Anchorage-based Lynden Inc., may raise as a defense that as a parent corporation, it cannot be held liable for the fault of its subsidiary based on the principle that it is a separate and distinct from Alaska West Express, Inc. Section 5: Learning Application. The case would be decided in favor of the plaintiff. In tort case, the standard of proof or sometimes referred to as the quantum of evidence is only preponderance of evidence. Among the defendants, it would be the Alaska West Express, Inc., which is held primarily liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff. The court will uphold the defense of BP and Anchorage-based Lynden, Inc. I have learned that the required or standard proof of evidence in tort case is only preponderance of evidence. That employer is primarily liable for the tortuous acts of the employee under agency law. Read More