Question

Scenario: Sam Smith was standing on a platform of B&O Railroad after buying a ticket to go to San Antonio Beach. A train stopped at the station, bound for another place. Two women ran forward to catch it. One of the women reached the platform of the car without incident, though the train was already moving. The other woman, carrying a package, jumped aboard the car but seemed unsteady as if about to fall. One of the guards on the car, who had held the door open, reached forward to help her in, and another guard on the platform pushed her from behind. In this act, the package was let go and fell onto the rails. The package was not big, and was within a plastic bag. The package, later, was determined to have fireworks within it. The fireworks when they fell exploded. The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away. The scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries for which Sam Smith is suing.

• Identify the type of tort or crime to be charged
• If a tort, examine the elements needed to meet this tort and if all elements were met.
• Evaluate and Recommend which parties should be held liable for the injuries suffered, if anyone?

Answer 1

No one will be charged for Tort because although Sam smith was injured due to the scales falling on him it was not because of the negligence of the B&O railroad. Though the B&O railroad owed a duty of care to him, they have not been negligent. Negligence is because of the absence of care here B&O railroad could have foreseen that a package falling could cause damage to people around.

The tort is a breach of a legal duty that causes injury or harm to others. The Tort caused by Sam Smith is unintentional.

An unintentional tort is an unintended accident that can lead to injury, property damage or financial loss. An unintentional tort is also known as negligence. Here there is no negligence by the B&O railroad.

The elements of the tort are:

· Duty: Defendant owes duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff. B&O railroad owes a duty of reasonable care as Sam Smith was standing at the platform after buying the ticket. The B & O railroad has to ensure the people waiting are safe. But B&O has not breached because they have not undertaken any activity which can be stated as negligent.

· Breach of duty: The defendant B&O railroad has not been negligent or breached their duty because Sam Smith was injured by a cracker bursting whose impact caused the scale to fall on Sam Smith. B&O could not have foreseen the incident so they are not responsible for the incident.

· Causation: The defendants cannot be considered liable as the cause for scales falling is not because of B&O railroads negligence.   The scales on the platform fell because of the impact of the cracker bursting. B&O railroad was not aware that the firecrackers were being carried in the bag or that the firecrackers would burst.

· Injury: The plaintiff is injured and has suffered damages because of the scales falling by accident. It does not show B&O's lack of duty of care as they could not have foreseen the incident.

Therefore, the B&O railroad had not breached the duty of care Sam smith was injured because of the scales which fell due to the bursting of the crackers. To conclude even if B&O conduct is negligent but they are not liable as they could not have foreseen injuring Sam smith the plaintiff or class of people to which the plaintiff belonged.