Question

Please use IRAC 1.

In 2013, Bakersfield PG&E decided to demolish their old power plant. PG&E hired Lincoln-Based Alpha Explosives, a well known demolition company with years of experience using high grade dynamite. The goal for the demolition was to destroy the old power plant with an internal explosion. Alpha Explosives was so certain in the process that they invited the public to watch. The week before the demolition date, Alpha Explosives sent dynamite experts to strategically place dynamite around the bottom floors of the PG&E power plant. On the day of the demolition, 300 bystanders watched as Alpha Explosives blasted the power plant. The demolition did not go according to plan, and 20 of the bystanders got injured by explosion debris. It was an explosion gone wrong. The medical costs resulted in over five million dollars. 15 of the 20 bystanders come to your office, and request for you to represent them in a class action tort lawsuit. They are wondering what would be the easiest type of tort action to bring in this case?

Answer 1

Issue

In order to demolish their old power station PG&E hired Lincoln-based Alpha explosives. The demolition was planned with an internal explosion to wreck the old power station. In this process, Alpha Explosives was so confident that it invited the public to watch. The experts of dynamite placed the dynamite strategically around the lower levels of the PG&E power station. 300 spectators were watching Alpha Explosives destroy the power plant on the day of the demolition.. Yet it wasn't intended to demolish and 20 of the participants were hit with explosive waste. It was a mistaken fire. There were over five million dollars in medical expenses. Fifteen of the twenty bystanders come to your office and ask that you represent them in the party proceedings.

Rule

• Tort of faults, the misfortune of negligence when four key factors are addressed
• The defendant is responsible for ensuring that the public and the complainant are properly looked after.
• Infringement of the duty of care should provide the claimant with sufficient proof that the defendant violates the duty of care.
• Damage caused by infringement of the duty of care, damages to other persons including the claimant should have been caused by the defendant's infringement of his duty of care.
• The defendant is responsible for anticipating possible harms and taking preventive precautions to stop these harms. The defendant is responsible for discrimination.

Application

Alpha Explosives failed to provide the witnesses and the complainant with sufficient protection in that situation. The Alpha Explosives dynamite experts sent the dynamite around the bottom floors of the power plant strategically a week before the demolition date. Nonetheless, on the day of demolition these explosives were not tested, as they could operate as planned. The explosion was not right, however, and 20 of the people who attended the explosion were wounded.

Conclusion

The case study reveals that Alpha Explosives were responsible for caring for the victims and the complainant, breaching their treatment duty and causing harm to those who were involved in it. In addition, the dynamites put one week ago were not tested. The alpha explosives do not do that. Therefore, the safest and easiest form of tort action to take in this situation is false charges of negligence.