Accidents are proving to be a disaster in the life of human beings in day today endeavors. The world has seen rise in insurances companies in the recent days than ever and it seems to be taking the course in human fraternity. People are encouraged to take insurance cover to ensure that their lives are compensated whenever an accident occurs. Pacific Prime Insurance Company now offer the best medical cover to the victims of accidents and its annual reports show tat about 35 percent of people world wide have benefit from the services of Pacific Prime especially victims of the 11th September terrorist attack in the United States. The world recently experienced a shut down of business as republicans vehemently opposed the proposed Obama Health Care Initiative. As if not enough, the conservatives went ahead and draft a plan know as Keep Your Health Plan Act. This assured insurers the continuity of selling health plans which did not meet the constitutional requirements. To show the world how insurance cover is important in people’s lives, Obama went ahead turning his back on the critics and hold an Affordable Care meeting with the chief executive officers of the health insurance companies. This battle shows the world how important it is to insure lives even if it is at the cost of breaking the rules in the eyes of many.
Sara Hartman is involved in an accident on the 16th of January 2011 at Ski lodge where she was to stay for a whole week. To her, that was not an accident but a deliberate case due to the carelessness and incompetence of Greg Mitchell the Valet parking attendant. But most interesting, the most responsible person for her accident was the real operators of the corporation. She specifically sues Dangerfield and Continental as liable under the act of premise liability where land and building are considered property of the owner. She claims that since the accident damage occurred at the premise of Ski lodge, Dangerfield and Continental were therefore liable for her accident
On the other hand, Sandman being the umbrella of the corporation was liable for the poor services offered by Dangerfield and Continental since Sandman was the engine of the corporation and was suppose to act as the watchdog of its subsidiaries. The three were responsible because of the carelessness, incompetence and negligence of its staff. Her claims are that the three had failed to mold quality services since its members offered poor services. Were it not for the negligence of the company in employing less qualified personnel, the accident could not have happen. This then sees case proceed to trail.
At the corridors of justice, Sara Hartman sues the three using logicality to arrive at her claims. Sara’s claims are supported by the consumer articles in the constitution which protects the consumers from exploitation by business men. To some extend the C-Corporation was in a dilemma and only the Verdict from the judgers was the determining factor.
Greg Mitchell an employee of Continental who operates as a parking attendant after suffering from major injuries during the accident also seeks justice. Despite the fact that he was the one who crushed over Sara Hartman, and on the process of trying to rescue Sara also gets hurt, sues his employers that is Continental, Dangerfield ,Sandman and Sara Hartman as liable for his accident. He claims that were it not for Hartman to walk in front of the car and she new perfectly that it was about to move for proper parking as required by the management, he could not have run over her, he sues Sara Hartman for her negligence that caused him the pain he underwent and to him she was the one to take responsibility under personal liability where the individual is liable for the negligence at place of work.
Mitchell interestingly sues his employer for allowing harmful, dangerous and unhealthy working conditions to persist. He notes the condition at the time of operation which was so pathetic since a snow of six inches had fallen along the driveway. This had come into the knowledge of the management at Ski lodge but what they could only do was just to clear the drive way a few hours earlier only for the snow to accumulate between one and two inches making it difficult to work. Mitchell alleges that since the condition was not conducive for work, the management should have stopped the operation but due to the strictness at work, Continental was therefore liable for his accident. He based his argument on strict liability where in accordance to law the corporation is therefore legally responsible for losses and damages caused by the act of omission.
As if not enough, Mitchell utilizes his knowledge on rights of workers act to sue his employer Continental. He wants to be paid his wages including those days which he did not work when recovering from injuries he encountered while working under strict management. He claims that he could be in his normal position of working as usual were it not for the negligence of the management of not clearing the driveway and making sure that the working condition for its employees was safe and good. Continental was therefore supposed to compensate his days of lost work during which he was recovering from the accident.
C-Corporation on the other hand being the accused had to defend its self so that it doesn’t work on losses being accused of. The defense team in response, claims that the damages that occurred at the Ski lodge between Sara Hartman and Greg Mitchell was there own problems and were liable for themselves. Continental defense team argues that the rule was so clear that The Management was NOT LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE in anyway for the damages that might occur, cause or incurred by Valet Parking Customers. This was clearly indicated at the back of any receipt given.
Mitchell was the Valet and he had actually caused the damage in the event of parking Hartman car. It is therefore from rational point of view that the management was not in any case responsible for the damage instead Hartman should sue Mitchell for his recklessness and carelessness when handling her car. The evidence of the rule was present and it seems Sara even ignored the instruction which was clear and sues the wrong person. This is according to the defense them at the court.
The case seems to be so interesting since each one is pointing finger to each other. It will be an exaggeration on my part to come up with the liability that Sandman, Dangerfield and Continental owe both Hartman and Mitchell rather than to wait for the verdict from the court.
Since neither Hartman, Mitchell and the S-corporation could come to an agreement, the principle of Intersection Model and Conservation Meter had to be applied to the negotiation to arrive at an amicable agreement towards settling the issue to ensure who compensate who and how much. The same case applies to the use or employing the concept of distrust of law and misconception where truth is depicted after confirming the lies of the other parties.
Reference
Reiner Kraakman, Henry Hansmann, Paul L. Davies, Klaus Hopt, Gerard Hertig, Hideki Kanda,(2006). The Anatomy of Corporate Law. (3rd Ed.) United Kingdom. A John Wiley and Sons, LTD, Publication.
Hui, Zhou; Tingqin Zhang. "Body Language in Business Negotiation". International Journal of Business Management, vol. 3 pg. (2).
