Case Study
Ron supervises delivery of flowers for a wholesale distributor of fresh flowers, Flowers. Inc. In order to accommodate one of the company's best customers, Ron offers to immediately rush a delivery of fresh peonies. All of the delivery trucks are currently out on delivery. Ron directs an employee, Ruth, to use her own vehicle to deliver the flowers.
Ruth carelessly parks her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolls down the hill, knocking down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignite a grass fire. The fire spreads until it reaches a gasoline station one mile away. There is a tanker truck off-loading gasoline to the station's gas tanks. The fire ignites the gasoline being pumped into the tanks, and one of the tanks explodes, causing part of the station structure to fall on and injure a passing motorist, Jim.
Can Jim recover damages from Ruth; from Flowers' Inc? Why or why not?
Identify the cause of action. Discuss each element of the cause of action, and relate them to your assessment of whether Jim has a cause of action against Ruth.
Discuss the legal doctrine under which Jim might also recover from Flowers, Inc.
Sample Solution
Jim may have a cause of action against Ruth for negligence. In order to establish a successful negligence claim, Jim must prove that: (1) Ruth owed him a duty of care; (2) she breached that duty; and (3) the breach was the proximate cause of his injuries.
Ruth owes Jim a duty of care not to act in such a manner that puts others at unreasonable risk of harm or injury. By failing to engage the parking brake, which caused her car to roll down the hill and knock down an electric line, igniting the grass fire that spread until it reached the gas station where Jim was injured, it appears as though Ruth breached her duty of care toward Jim. The breach in this case can be considered as the proximate cause for all resulting damages—the fire ignited by her careless action ultimately caused part of the station structure to fall on and injure Jim. Therefore, there is potential for recovery from Ruth through a successful negligence claim.
Jim might also recover from Flowers’ Inc under a legal doctrine known as Respondeat Superior (‘Let The Master Answer’). This doctrine holds employers responsible when their employees are negligent while performing acts within their scope of employment with their employer. As Ron was acting on behalf Flowers' Inc when he directed Ruth to use her own vehicle for delivery purposes, and since delivering flowers falls within her scope of employment with them, they could potentially be held liable under this doctrine if it is found that Ruth acted negligently while performing these duties – thus making them vicariously liable for any damages incurred by third parties due to any negligent actions taken by either party involved in this incident.