In both cases BUG is liable for negligence and could pay compensatory and punitive damages. As an employer, BUG is bound to protect its employees. In the case of the vendor, BUG can be considered as owner of the land (dock) while the vendor is a licensee. As such, BUG has a duty of ordinary care to the vendor. In defense of a tort liability filed by the vendor, BUG can use the assumption of risk as its defense. It is a fact that the town is experiencing a crime wave.
Knowing that it was lunch time, the vendor should have simply just returned later instead of waiting.
or any similar topic only for you
Had the vendor done so, it could not have been robbed and the items to be delivered stolen. However, BUG cannot use the same defense against tort filed by employees. As employees, they are required to report for work and go home after. BUG can however use contributory negligence as a defense. BUG can use the fact that the parking lot was originally well lit.
As employees, they should have informed the company of the condition of the lights in the parking lot. Employees should also have updated the company on whether the lights were already fixed or not. 6) Sally can file negligence suit against BUG. BUG knew that an insulator could prevent shorts from happening but did not do so for business reasons. Sally can also file for misrepresentation since BUG continued to manufacture the product despite knowledge of a problem possibly occurring.
Sally cannot file for strict liability since the product was not technically defective. Sally however can also file for failure to warn since BUG should have informed its customers of the possibility of a short. Sally can request for compensatory damages, specifically general damages, since she actually suffered harm on her person. As a result of BUG not including the insulator knowing that it could prevent short, Sally can further ask for punitive damages.