Plg-101-1301: Torts & Personal Injury
In representation for Plaintiff, in writing, for recovery of damages in a potential case against “Gravel Is Us” Co. located in the State of Ohio. By these means, the following is the evaluation: According to our information, an employee of a dynamite blast company by the name of “Gravel is Us”, contracted by the State of Ohio, was negligent in failing to prevent you from entering its construction danger zone and causing severe injuries to you.The gravel company claims, that the street warning sign that they had previously; put up was sufficient enough to prevent harm, but are not denying their employees negligent actions.
Plaintiff must show proof of four elements, in order to win a claim against the Defendant. The elements are as follows:
1. Basic Duty
2. Breach of duty
3. Cause
4. Harm
Defendant, had the basic duty to prevent outside vehicles from entering the danger zone during, their dangerous explosive activities. Defendant breached their duty when one of their employees fell asleep during their shift, leaving opportunity to allow entrance to a dangerous zone; hence allowing our Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter said danger zone. Had the Defendant’s employee performed their job under the basic reasonable standard of care, our Plaintiff would have then been prevented from entering said zone, which was neglectfully unsupervised at entrance by Defendants employee. If said mentioned employee had prevented the entrance of an explosive and dangerous construction zone, our plaintiff would have also been prevented of his injuries. Our Plaintiff has since suffered major injuries arising from Defendant’s formatted employee’s negligence in which a plausible and foreseeable event of explosions from Defendant’s construction site injured our Plaintiff.
Under the doctrine of respondent superior “an employer is liable for the negligent acts or omissions of his employee which are committed within the scope of his employment. Liability based on
Plaintiff must show proof of four elements, in order to win a claim against the Defendant. The elements are as follows:
1. Basic Duty
2. Breach of duty
3. Cause
4. Harm
Defendant, had the basic duty to prevent outside vehicles from entering the danger zone during, their dangerous explosive activities. Defendant breached their duty when one of their employees fell asleep during their shift, leaving opportunity to allow entrance to a dangerous zone; hence allowing our Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter said danger zone. Had the Defendant’s employee performed their job under the basic reasonable standard of care, our Plaintiff would have then been prevented from entering said zone, which was neglectfully unsupervised at entrance by Defendants employee. If said mentioned employee had prevented the entrance of an explosive and dangerous construction zone, our plaintiff would have also been prevented of his injuries. Our Plaintiff has since suffered major injuries arising from Defendant’s formatted employee’s negligence in which a plausible and foreseeable event of explosions from Defendant’s construction site injured our Plaintiff.
Under the doctrine of respondent superior “an employer is liable for the negligent acts or omissions of his employee which are committed within the scope of his employment. Liability based on