Question

Ellie's Engineering, Inc. has several warehouses and it is necessary for employees to transport different items between the warehouses, depending on what products are being manufactured at any given time. One day Bill, Karen, and Josh were required to load several containers of an explosive chemical onto a truck to transport it across town to another warehouse. Karen knew that the chemical must be handled carefully to prevent it from exploding, but she did not refuse to move the containers nor did she indicate to Bill and Josh that the chemical was dangerous. After loading the containers, Josh is moving the truck out of the loading zone and negligently backs it into a brick wall, causing an explosion, injuring all three workers. Bill died from the injuries several days after the accident. Which of the following statements most accurately describes the common law defense(s) that Ellie's Engineering might use to defend themselves against a lawsuit filed by Karen?

Answer 1

Ellie's Engineering might use defenses such as assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and the fellow-servant rule against Karen's lawsuit, arguing her awareness of dangers, failure to warn, and Josh's negligence.

Step-by-step explanation:

The common law defenses that Ellie's Engineering might use to defend themselves against a lawsuit filed by Karen would likely include the assumption of risk, contributory negligence, and perhaps the fellow-servant rule. The assumption of risk defense could claim that Karen was aware of the dangers posed by the explosive chemicals but chose to participate in the work without objecting or taking additional precautions.

Contributory negligence might be argued on the basis that Karen's failure to inform Bill and Josh of the chemical's dangerous nature contributed to the accident. Additionally, the fellow-servant rule may be invoked, suggesting that the company is not liable for injuries caused by the negligence of fellow employees, in this case, Josh's mishandling of the truck.