Business Law Case Analysis Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Business uprightness Analysis - Case Study ExampleA guard who was on the platform tried move the passenger into the train, while an separate guard, who was in the train, tried grabbing the passenger. The man had a package, which had fireworks, and dropped in the process of embarkment the train and exploded. It was however not easy to know the packages issue and upon explosion, scales on the other side of the rails platform fell, causing injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the guards for negligence that the trial motor lodge upheld and the appellate court affirmed, forcing the rail company to appeal at the New York chat up of Appeal (New York Court of Appeal 1).Doctrines of causation, proximate cause, and forceability apply to negligence. Despite initiation of duty of care, whose breach may amount to abuse, these doctrines determines existence of negligent liability. Negligence is upheld if suffered harm would not make believe happened, had the defendant not assumed hi s or her action, and a strong connection also ought to exist between a defendants act and the suffered harm (Roger and Miller 305, 306). Under foreseeability doctrine, liability arises if, from an ordinary mans perspective, a risk is likely to occur, and not just a mere possibility of occurrence, and such was a court decision in the cutting of Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington. The same decision was held in the case of Bolton v. Stone where even possibility of occurrence, unless occurrence is possible, from a lifelike perspective, does not induce negligence liability (Mandaraka-Sheppard 609).Facts of the case undermines causation because the passengers suffered instability could have caused the falling of the package, independently, into the harm that the plaintiff suffered, and this further transcends to undermine proximate cause. The fact that the guards could not identify content of the package, to foresee possible impacts of their actions also undermines negligence on from the guar ds. Even if the content could be identified, possible