Law Essay
Question 1
When a case of negligence is filed, three elements must be proven and justified in order to sustain a lawsuit. These three elements include:
i) Defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff ii) Defendant breached the duty of care iii) Defendants breach of duty caused injury or damage to plaintiff
There are several parties of defendants involved in this case including Bart, the owner of 1 Main Street, the initial property where the fire broke out; Provincial Insurance Inc. for the lack of clarification on its insurance policy, and potentially the fire department for not responding promptly. Putting aside the fire department and the insurance company for further discussion, in the case for Lisa taking action against Bart, there are sufficient grounds to argue with. Brat owed a duty of care to the adjoining buildings by making sure his actions (or lack of action) do not cause any consequential damages to his surroundings, even after acknowledging that his property was frequented by teenagers and transients. Brat not only ignored the situation, he had stopped locking the shed since there wasn’t much stored and had been broken into many times. Given a reasonable person, further action would be taken to prevent injuries or damages, such as adding an extra lock, or notifying the police of potential trespassers. Lisa could potentially challenge the fact that Brat hasn’t taken any action in installing the alarm and sprinkler system that was ordered by the City. However this will be make a weak case and most likely will not withhold in court given that fact that Brat has until August 7 to do so. (Noted that the fire broke out on August 1) By being careless and reluctant, Brat broke the duty of care when he gave up caring about his property and the surrounding properties by not locking his shed. Lastly with the third element, Brat (defendant,) although not causing physical injury to Lisa (plaintiff,) still caused damages to her property. The three elements
When a case of negligence is filed, three elements must be proven and justified in order to sustain a lawsuit. These three elements include:
i) Defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff ii) Defendant breached the duty of care iii) Defendants breach of duty caused injury or damage to plaintiff
There are several parties of defendants involved in this case including Bart, the owner of 1 Main Street, the initial property where the fire broke out; Provincial Insurance Inc. for the lack of clarification on its insurance policy, and potentially the fire department for not responding promptly. Putting aside the fire department and the insurance company for further discussion, in the case for Lisa taking action against Bart, there are sufficient grounds to argue with. Brat owed a duty of care to the adjoining buildings by making sure his actions (or lack of action) do not cause any consequential damages to his surroundings, even after acknowledging that his property was frequented by teenagers and transients. Brat not only ignored the situation, he had stopped locking the shed since there wasn’t much stored and had been broken into many times. Given a reasonable person, further action would be taken to prevent injuries or damages, such as adding an extra lock, or notifying the police of potential trespassers. Lisa could potentially challenge the fact that Brat hasn’t taken any action in installing the alarm and sprinkler system that was ordered by the City. However this will be make a weak case and most likely will not withhold in court given that fact that Brat has until August 7 to do so. (Noted that the fire broke out on August 1) By being careless and reluctant, Brat broke the duty of care when he gave up caring about his property and the surrounding properties by not locking his shed. Lastly with the third element, Brat (defendant,) although not causing physical injury to Lisa (plaintiff,) still caused damages to her property. The three elements