Negligence and Strict Liability Essay

719 WordsOct 23, 20123 Pages
| | | | | Negligence and Strict Liability Kelly Kanton Labaj and Third Coast Auto Group, LP VS Deeann VanHouten Legal Environment of Business | Within negligence and strict liability lie many possible acts that can occur either pleasant or unpleasant. We can’t predict what might happen wither to us or someone else whom we may be liable for. As for Deeann VanHouten it was very unpredictable to her to kn0ow what might happen that day at work. VanHouten’s boss would be negligent to notify her about a guard dog in the business lot. The Third Coast Auto Group, LP may have been unintentional but took careless actions that became their responsibility. Third Coast Auto Group also known as TCAG was negligent in keeping their guard dog restrained while work hours putting his employees, and customers and nay other individual at actual harm. In the tort of negligence there are three possible things that need to be proven in order to succeed. VanHouten has to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, secondly that the defendant breaks that duty of care within the standard of care required by law, and finally breach of duty of care results in damages to the plaintiff. In this case of Kelly Kanton Labaj and Third Coast Auto Group, LP VS Deeann VanHouten the defendants were liable for her injuries because they knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous and vicious propensities. The Third Coast Auto Group, LP failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the dog from injuring VanHouten. TCAG is liable for keeping the premises safe, not only for VanHouten but for other employees and customers. A business owner who has a dog in his premises should always keep in good faith its customers and employees well being in mind. Even is the owner knows or believes a dog is not vicious enough to harm a human being he is still subjected to liability for

More about Negligence and Strict Liability Essay

Open Document