Legal Analysis of Carz Bazaar Case

Running head: CARZ BAZAAR CASE 1
Step 4: Reviewing, Gathering & Analyzing Information: Legal Analysis
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
October 9, 2018

CARZ BAZAAR CASE 2
Part I: Arguments for the Plaintiffs
According to the doctrine of “vicarious liability’ described by Bowers & Davis (2010),
the plaintiff is capable of holding a third party responsible for actions committed by an
individual or group. In the Carz Bazaar case, Wilson caused the accident will perceive to be
working for the company, which stimulated the accident victims to file a case suing the company
for the negligence action. In any instances, when a worker negligently causes an accident while
operating in the umbrella of an employer, any individual injured in the accident is allowed to
seek total compensation from both the employer and employer (Burch, 2012; Peruginelli, 2011).
However, the main burden of proving the relationship of an employee and the employer still rests
upon the plaintiff in order to establish a strong legal accountability. According to Keith (2004),
the complainant should be able to identify is the individual who caused the accident was an
employee and if he was operating under the scope of a given company.
The Facts of the Case
From the case, the plaintiff was involved in an accidents with Wilson who was an
employee of the defendant. The accident victims file a court case over Carz Bazaar that hired the
driver. However, the company can potentially deny the liability since the driver was operating on
an independent mission and was not in the scope of company activities that day. Moreover, the
driver did not include an entry of any trips and was using the company’s vehicle on his own
errand. To support this rationale, the company clearly stated a procedural approach of any daily
activities to be recorded. Resultantly, due to absence of any recorded connected to Wilson, the

CARZ BAZAAR CASE 3
company might easily deny the burden of offering compensation to the victims as a claim of the
driver operating under his own discretion.
Part II: Arguments for the Defendent
For a plaintiff to win the case for negligence, five fundamental elements have to be proven
(Walker, 2011). Among the element is ‘damages’ which implies that the victim should have
suffered potential loss, injury or pain for the defendant to be held accountable for the accident
caused (“Child Care Access Resource & Training Agency”, 2000). In that case, even if the
complainant successfully proved the defendant’s negligence, the case will lack merit if it one of
the elements is no proven successfully.
A court’s decision on the final verdict concerning Wilson’s negligence is based up the Victim’s
degree of evidence and fact and if all element are achieved. These elements include:
 Role
 Tort of the role
 Actual cause
 Adjacent cause
 Damages
The five fundamental elements of negligence are further illustrated below.
Role
The overall result of a negligence case will be determined if the defendant had an obligation to
offer over the plaintiff (Haygood & Hensley, 2006). A role to play appears when there is