Question 1
Facts: The manager failed on his part to warn customers of the water hazard. He had the moral obligation and duty to his customer to prevent injury. On his part, the customer trusted the manager to take necessary action that would prevent any harm to his customers.
Question under discussion: The primary question for discussion is; does the manager owe his customer a safe environment within his premises?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Applicable Law: The best applicable law is the law of negligence. Negligence primary entails one party’s failure to take the necessary measures in the most appropriate way. Often negligence results in an injury or loss. At the same time, the law of intentional tort is also applicable in which the customer can sue for harm that the manager caused intentionally.
The manager basically owes his customers a safe environment failure to which he will be exposing them to harm intentionally by failing to undertake his responsibility. The customer on the other hand, entrusts his safety on the manager while within his premises. Any failure to accord a safe environment will generally result into negligence.
Conclusion: The manager owes the customer a safe environment and should have done all within his ability to either warn of the water or clean it out from his premises. Thus he will have to pay the customer for the damages resulting from his injury.
Question 2
Fact: Rawls despite not applying his breaks did not cause the accident on purpose. Brailey on the other hand is right to sue Rawls for reckless driving.
The primary question: Did Rawls cause the accident intentionally?
Law: The most applicable law is the law of negligence in which Rawls neglected his central duty to ensure that his vehicle was roadworthy.
Conclusion: Brailey is right to sue the insurance company for damages caused by Rawls. The insurance company will be expected to pay for the damages incurred by Brailey.
