Q.1
The elements of the plaintiff’s claim for damages against the hotel as the employer include loss of income/earnings or economic loss and pain and suffering. The complaint against the animal keepers as guests is a breach of the duty of care constituting negligence. Examples of animal diseases that one may contract as a result of being around or handling animals include zoonotic diseases such as anthrax, brucellosis, leptospirosis, arbovirus, and Campylobacteriosis. To avoid infection by these diseases, the care that one should include the use of personal protective equipment such as boot, aprons, overalls, goggles and gloves, vaccination of pets, cleaning and disinfection of the workplace and avoiding contact with animal wastes. The regulations that apply are the Florida Regulations based on the Animal Welfare Act.
Q. 2
One of the defenses that the hotel may have to counteract the plaintiff’s claim may include an invocation of section 706 (g) of Title VII claiming that the plaintiff has failed in their duty to minimize damages. The training, equipment, and precautions that are required in this case include training on the handling of animals, protective equipment like gloves, goggles, and masks when handling animal wastes and taking precautions not to get into direct contact with the animals if they have not be disinfected or vaccinated against common pet diseases. According to Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005), employers owes its employees a non-delegable duty of care of taking reasonable care not to expose them to unnecessary risks to injury. The employment contract issues that arise in this case include wrongful termination, employee rights, duties and responsibilities of employers to employees, employee safety and health and breach of employment contract. The employment regulation issues, in this case, include safety and health of employees in the workplace and fair labor practices. The effect of breach of contract by the animal keepers is that they will be required to compensate the hotel owners for damages that would be used to settle damages owed to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the effect of breach of contract by the hotel is that they will not be able to enforce any rights or claims against the animal keepers.
Q. 3
The defenses of the animal caretakers as guests in the hotel include breach of contract by the hotel manager, and the action by the hotel manager to expose the plaintiff to the animals. They may argue that, had the hotel not allowed its employees to enter the room where the animals were, the plaintiff would not have contracted the disease. Further, the animal caretakers may claim contributory breach or negligence on the part of the hotel since the hotel is responsible in part for what happened to the plaintiff. They may also rely on the defense of privity of contract to claim that since the plaintiff was not part of the agreement between them and the hotel, he cannot successfully claim damages from them. In AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. (1987) and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. American Aviation, Inc (2004), it was held that under the contractual privity economic loss rule, a plaintiff could not bring an independent claim unless it can be shown that there was some conduct by the defendant that resulted in personal injury. In this case, the personal harm suffered by Valdez was caused directly by the failure by his employer to provide safety equipment and not the animal caretakers. The plaintiff cannot benefit from a contract to which he was never a party in the first place. His contract is one of employment with the hotel and not the caretakers. The special precautions that should have been taken are vaccination of the animals to minimize the risk of transmitting the disease, and the provision of protecting garments and equipment by the hotel to its employees including the plaintiff to avoid any impacts on their health. Further, precautions should have been taken when drafting the contract to provide for the parties to put in place special protection measures in case the employees or any other person were to intervene under any circumstance to handle the animals. The regulations that apply include the occupational health and safety regulations and also the state regulations on ownership or possession of exotic animals. The effect of the guest’s contract with the hotel is that it bars any third party from suing under the contract except the hotel. The result of a breach of contract by the animal keepers and the breach of contract by the hotel is that it makes each party liable to pay damages for settlement of the plaintiff’s claims should he succeed.
Q. 4
The standard of proof of causation in personal injury claims according to Miller (2013) is that of the balance of probabilities or preponderance of the evidence. According to this author, the standard in such cases should be one of probability or the “more probable than not” standard of proof. Yes, it matters that the plaintiff had earlier on made contacts with farm animals and developed no complications. This is because it helps to counter any potential by the animal owners that she contracted the disease from the farm animals she made contact with. Yes, there can be shared liability in the form of comparative and contributory fault under which each party is severally and jointly liable. According to Goguen (2015), in such cases, what needs to be considered is the proportion of liability of each party, that is, the extent to which each party contributed to the injury.
References
Goguen, D. (2015). Shared blame: Comparative and contributory fault for the personal injury. Retrieved September 7, 2016, from http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal- injury/shared-blame-comparative-contributory-fault.html
Miller, C. (2013). Causation in personal injury law: The case for a probabilistic approach. Topoi: An International Review of Philosophy, 33(2), 385-396.
