Plaintiff must show proof of four elements, in order to win a claim against the Defendant. The elements are as follows:
1. Basic Duty
2. Breach of duty
Defendant, had the basic duty to prevent outside vehicles from entering the danger zone during, their dangerous explosive activities. Defendant breached their duty when one of their employees fell asleep during their shift, leaving opportunity to allow entrance to a dangerous zone; hence allowing our Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter said danger zone. Had the Defendant’s employee performed their job under the basic reasonable standard of care, our Plaintiff would have then been prevented from entering said zone, which was neglectfully unsupervised at entrance by Defendants employee. If said mentioned employee had prevented the entrance of an explosive and dangerous construction zone, our plaintiff would have also been prevented of his injuries. Our Plaintiff has since suffered major injuries arising from Defendant’s formatted employee’s negligence in which a plausible and foreseeable event of explosions from Defendant’s construction site injured our Plaintiff.
Under the doctrine of respondent superior “an employer is liable for the negligent acts or omissions of his employee which are committed within the scope of his employment. Liability based on respondent superior requires some evidence that a master-servant relationship existed between the parties.
The test to determine if respondent superior applies is whether the person sought to be charged as a master had the right or power to control and direct the physical conduct of the other in the performance of the act. If there is no right to control, there is no liability. Wilson v. United States, 989 F.2d 953, 958 (8th Cir. 1993)
“An employer may be liable for the intentional torts of its employees as the
law now imposes liability whether the employee’s purpose, however misguided,
is wholly or in part to further the master’s business.” State v Hoshijo ex rel.
White, 102 Hawaii 307, 318, FN 27 (Hawaii, 2003).
In Rich v. Ohio Underground, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 6155, an Ohio
Appellate Court overseeing Walczesky v. Horvitz Co. stated "Strict liability
is imposed on:
• When he or she engages in an extraordinarily hazardous activity that
causes injury to
• Notwithstanding the lack of negligence on the part of A. The act itself
is so exceptionally hazardous that the doing of it imposes an absolute
duty to protect the public from any harm, regardless of any
Carelessness or negligence on the part of the actor.
For example, the intentional use of explosives to excavate gives rise to an absolute liability for any injury occasioned as a result." (1971) 26 Ohio St. 2d 146. In the Case of Bricker v. Snook, an Appellate court (1989) Ohio App. LEXIS 1076 stated:
“It is the universally accepted rule that an employer is liable for
personal injuries or the death of another person, or injury to
another person's property caused by his employee's negligence,...