Reference no: EM133103914

Revise the paper.

What is the reasonable interpretation for this case? A man who was guided upon certain regulations on how human affairs are being conducted. Dewayne actions by leaving the truck's motor running and carelessly forgetting to engage the hand/parking brake has caused a huge issue which puts him at sake. In conclusion, the trucked rolled, crushed and caused damage to the neighborhoods of where it had been left by Dewayne.

To be able to prove negligence on the part of Dewayne as the defendant, Fazio will need to demonstrated the following to the court:

That Dewayne owed Fazio a legal duty of care. Fazio will need prove to the court that Dewayne knew or ought to have reasonable known that acting negligently by leaving the truck's motor running without engaging the parking brake, would cause injury to him. It is a general rule in the law of torts that every person owes their neighbour a legal duty of care. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932), Lord Atkin provided that one needed to take reasonable care to avoid those acts or omissions which they could reasonably foresee and would be likely to injure their neighbour. This principally applies to persons closely or directly affected by the said acts or omissions. Fazio will need to prove to the court that Dewayne could have reasonably foreseen injuring him through his actions or omissions.

Fazio (the plaintiff) will also need to prove to court, by way of adducing evidence, that Dewayne, i his said negligent acts or omission, breached his legal duty of care. Fazio must prove the specific acts or omission on the part of Dewayne that led to the conclusion that he acted negligently. It is possible in some instance, for breach of duty to be proved without evidence as the circumstances or facts may "speak for themselves"

Fazio will need to proved that as a result of Dewayne's breach of his legal duty of care, he(Fazio) suffered a loss or damage. The damage or loss that Fazio cites must be directly traceable to Dewayne's breach of his legal duty; must be a direct consequence of the negligent acts or the omission. Where the damage is not directly traced to Dewayne's actions, it would be considered remote and hence irrevocable.

As the Attorney of Speedy Delivery, I would cite contributory negligence on the part of Fazio, as the best defense argument in the given circumstances. The Plaintiff (Fazio) is also to blame for the injury sustained in the accident. Fazio's action to be a bystander at a construction site predisposed him to danger of injury at the site, including being hit or fell on bu construction debris such as a wall collapsing and that he could reasonably foresee such danger as it is common knowledge to for third parties to stay away from active construction sites as a precautionary measure. The plaintiff was therefore at fault and his negligence contributed to the wall falling on him and hence the injuries sustained. This will reduce the amount of damages recoverable by Fazio.