Reference no: EM132289557

The civil liability in this case is about negligence; things that happen by accident or non-intentional tort. It is the lack of care or due regard that a reasonable, judicious or careful person would have in the same situation that causes damages to another person or party. The principles that must be proven include duty of due care or legal responsibility, breach of duty or legal obligation, factual or actual cause, proximate or foreseeable cause, and damages (Beatty, Samuelson, & Bredeson, 2013). In this case all five principles of negligence by the investigator have been met. The investigator did not exercise due care in being aware of the gasoline on scene during the investigation and did not clean up or mitigate the spill which constitutes a breach of duty. The factual cause is the unintentional or accidental gasoline spill by the investigator, and the proximate or foreseeable cause is the fact that gasoline is a volatile flammable liquid that produces explosive vapors and was the cause of the subsequent fire. The resulting actual damages were the personal injuries suffered in the fire. Under the principle of respondeat superior, the employer is also liable for negligence. This strict liability holds them liable for the negligence of the employee since the act (or tort) was committed during the performance of the employee’s job, or within the scope of their employment. The actual damage may include personal injury, medical bills, lost income and property damage (Verone, 2014).

How could this have been handled differently?