Fazio v. Speedy Delivery Company’s Business Tort Case
Fazio’s Arguments
Negligence is the type of tort, meaning the failure to behave in a way that meets the reasonable standard of care in specific circumstances, ultimately resulting in damage to somebody else. This may include conducting an inappropriate action or failing to perform a proper action (Valbrune et al., 2019). In general, negligence is set by defining the defendant’s duty, whether he or she committed a breach of the duty, and the claimant’s sufferance as proximate aftermath of the violation.
In the case of Fazio v. Speedy Delivery Company, Fazio can prove that he was injured because of Dewayne’s negligence. Particularly, the plaintiff should indicate that the driver had to perform a duty of care but breached it. Indeed, Dewayne did not meet a duty of care since he carelessly forgot to apply the parking brake during delivery; thus, the liability was violated. In addition, Fazio suffered from the accident by obtaining physical harm due to the fall of a crane. Finally, the claimant can also argue that Dewayne’s failure to perform the duty should be regarded as the direct cause of the received harm. It is true to some extent since the crane dropped because of a wall burned by fire ignited due to the fact that truck crashed into a gas station pump.
The Attorney’s Arguments
Nevertheless, Speedy Delivery Company, as a defendant, can use some remedies if it is found guilty of negligence, which may exonerate it entirely or reduce the amount of damage. Specifically, to comprehend the duty of care, it is worth using the terms ‘proximity’ and ‘fairness’ introduced by the cases of Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1977) and Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) (Osborne, n.d.). The first assumes that the parties should be ‘sufficiently close’ to foresee that the negligence of one party could cause detriment to another (Osborne, n.d.). In this context, Speedy Delivery’s attorney can prove that the company could not reasonably anticipate that the outcome of its actions would harm Fazio. That is, the accident’s actual cause was too remote from the defendant’s injury.
Moreover, the attorney can utilize the principle named “Novus actus interveniens,” implying that there are other events out of the defendant’s control, which can intervene in the causality chain. One such intervention limiting responsibility from Speedy Delivery includes the plaintiff’s unreasonable actions, which the company could not foresee and control. Indeed, Fazio was a bystander, which indicates that he could take all necessary actions ensuring his safety, including leaving the place of the accident and moving away to a safe distance. Evidently, Fazio did not take any actions required in such situations, and, therefore, he unreasonably put himself at a high risk for which the company was not liable.
Conclusion
On-time delivery!
Get your 100% customized paperdone in as little as 1 hour
This paper has considered the case of Fazio v. Speedy Delivery Company and addressed the two questions related to Fazio’s actions to recover damages and the best defense argument of Speedy Delivery’s attorney. Fazio can specify that he was injured because of Dewayne’s negligence since the latter breached a duty of care. Moreover, Fazio suffered from the driver’s carelessness by obtaining physical harm due to the fall of a crane resulting from the accident. In contrast, the attorney can prove that the defendant’s actions were unreasonable since Fazio was aware of the danger but did not take appropriate measures to secure himself. Finally, the accident’s actual cause was too distant from the defendant’s injury.
References
Osborne, S. (n.d.). The tort of negligence. ACCA Global. Web.
Valbrune, M., Assis., R. D. A., Cardell, S., Taylor, T. C., Sappleton, N., Mitchell, C. M., & Mitchell-Phillips, K. (2019). Business Law I Essentials. Rice University