Ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the law. This is a long time ideology that has often been applied to illustrate to cases whereby people shall not be able to escape the hand of the law if they tend to use ignorance as their reason for doing a certain action, an action that may be harmful to another person's life, his property or anything that he rightfully considers his right. This therefore means that whoever performs such an unreasonable act is bound to be answerable to the court of law. This therefore means that negligence that arises or an intentional wrong committed towards an individual shall be punishable. It is behold any reasonable doubt that the two stable attendants commited tort. Tort in relation to aw has been defined as a case whereby an injured person has the legal obligation of suing the tort -feasor, (the one who has committed the wrong) for compensation for the damages caused. It is identified legally that torts are civil wrongs and not criminal deeds (Giliker, 2010). But in a number of instances, a tort-feasor may be sued for both civil and criminal penalties for acts such as battery that are considered both a crime and a civil wrong.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
Tex, Rex the stable owner, the resort that promoted the trail ride can be sued so as to compensate you for the damages that happened. you have the legal obligation of asking for compensation from the resort and the two hands men Tex and Rex. The kind of crime in this case can be argued in relation to vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is termed to as the situation whereby a person is held responsible for damages committed by another people (T 1869-1954 Baty. 2010). This means therefore that the stable owner and the resort that was in charge of the promotion of the trail ride will be accountable for what Rex and Tex did despite the fact that they did not play any direct part in bringing about the injuries that you sustained from Molly especially when they knew how bad you were with horses.
It is assumed that if one was working under the directions of the employer and damage occurs, then it makes logic to hold the employer responsible (Lippman, 2009). This is because the policies employed and followed in the firm must have been created by the employer. Therefore the humor which Rex and Tex were interested in portraying towards you may be assumed to be under the stable's policies hence the reason for the stable owner being held responsible. The issue of letting Tex act as my witness is irrelevant because still he shall be charged as an accomplice. At the same time, the fact that he damages and injuries I sustained were due to their behaviors is evidence enough. The person entirely responsible to compensate me is the stable owner.
Lippman, (2009) argues that under vicarious liability, we often look at the relationship between eh employer and the employee. This means that the employee will always be work under the directions of the employer who is the boss. In our above case, Tex and Rex are employees of the stable owner, and they shall be answerable to the stable owner in relation to whatever they do. Under vicarious liability argument, it is assumed that when the stable owner was recruiting Rex and Tex, they knew very well what was required of them, and therefore they were expected to work within their jurisdictions (Giliker, 2010). It is also indicated in the case blatantly that the two hands men knew what they were doing, they knew how molly would react and they did not inform you of the repercussions of you riding her. Just as parents may be held responsible for the damage their minor may cause on another person's property, then the stable owner may be held accountable for the damages caused by the employees. The point that drives vicarious liability is to hold responsible the person who is deemed responsible for the damages committed.