Jacobsen vs Nike
Individual Assignment - ENMN 430
Erkens Gjini
Legal Case Brief
Jacobson vs. Nike Canada Inc.,
Instructor: Connie Carter
November 9th, 2014
Introduction
In the case of Jacobsen vs. Nike Canada Ltd, Mr. Jacobsen an employer of Nike Canada Ltd was seriously injured in a car accident as a result of alcohol consumption while at work. This paper will prove that the defendant (Nike Canada Ltd.) was negligent in all the four elements of “Negligence “ and therefore liable for the injuries. Also it will explain for any legal defense that the employer (Nike Canada Ltd.) might be able to raise.
Relevant Facts.
Mr. Jacobsen was an employee of Nike Canada Ltd.
The employer, through its representative, supplied the workers with food and considerable amounts of beer.
Mr. Jacobsen was required to work a long period of time.
Mr. Jacobsen was allowed to drink while on the job
Mr. Jacobsen consumed around 10 beers while at work.
Mr. Jacobsen left work at 11:30 pm
Mr. Jacobsen and other co-workers went to two other clubs
Mr. Jacobsen consumed more beer.
Driving home Mr. Jacobsen was involved in a single-vehicle accident
Mr. Jacobsen was seriously injured in an accident and became quadriplegic.
Mr. Jacobsen sued Nike Canada Ltd.
Relevant Law
Tort Law - Law of Negligence: It involves inadvertent or unintentionally careless conduct causing injury or damage to another person or his property. Four required elements or ingredients must be established by the plaintiff to succeed in a negligence action. Failure to establish any one of these four will lead to dismissal of the plaintiff’s action.1
The required ingredients are:
A duty to exercise care must exist - Such a duty arises when the law recognizes a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, and due to this relationship, the defendant is obligated to act in a certain manner toward the plaintiff2. The courts use the “reasonable foreseeability test” to determine if a relationship
Erkens Gjini
Legal Case Brief
Jacobson vs. Nike Canada Inc.,
Instructor: Connie Carter
November 9th, 2014
Introduction
In the case of Jacobsen vs. Nike Canada Ltd, Mr. Jacobsen an employer of Nike Canada Ltd was seriously injured in a car accident as a result of alcohol consumption while at work. This paper will prove that the defendant (Nike Canada Ltd.) was negligent in all the four elements of “Negligence “ and therefore liable for the injuries. Also it will explain for any legal defense that the employer (Nike Canada Ltd.) might be able to raise.
Relevant Facts.
Mr. Jacobsen was an employee of Nike Canada Ltd.
The employer, through its representative, supplied the workers with food and considerable amounts of beer.
Mr. Jacobsen was required to work a long period of time.
Mr. Jacobsen was allowed to drink while on the job
Mr. Jacobsen consumed around 10 beers while at work.
Mr. Jacobsen left work at 11:30 pm
Mr. Jacobsen and other co-workers went to two other clubs
Mr. Jacobsen consumed more beer.
Driving home Mr. Jacobsen was involved in a single-vehicle accident
Mr. Jacobsen was seriously injured in an accident and became quadriplegic.
Mr. Jacobsen sued Nike Canada Ltd.
Relevant Law
Tort Law - Law of Negligence: It involves inadvertent or unintentionally careless conduct causing injury or damage to another person or his property. Four required elements or ingredients must be established by the plaintiff to succeed in a negligence action. Failure to establish any one of these four will lead to dismissal of the plaintiff’s action.1
The required ingredients are:
A duty to exercise care must exist - Such a duty arises when the law recognizes a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, and due to this relationship, the defendant is obligated to act in a certain manner toward the plaintiff2. The courts use the “reasonable foreseeability test” to determine if a relationship
Bibliography: Yates, Richard A., Teresa Bereznicki-Korol, and Trevor Clark. Business Law in Canada Tenth Edition. Toronto: Pearson, 2013 (pg. 135) "Elements of a Negligence Case - FindLaw." Findlaw. Accessed November 9, 2014. http://images.findlaw.com/optimost/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case-2.html. Contributory Negligence Legal Definition:." Contributory Negligence Legal Definition. Accessed November 9, 2014. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/Contr "Volenti Non Fit Injuria." Wikipedia. March 11, 2014. Accessed November 9, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_inju Negligence – Hunt v Sutton Group: Employer’s Duty of Care to Employees Janice Payne and Nicole Strano, Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP." Http://www.nelligan.ca/e/pdf/negligence_(jbp).pdf. January 1, 2001. Accessed November 9, 2014. http://www.nelligan.ca/e/pdf/negligence_(jbp).pd