Legal Analysis: Negligence and Strict Liability in Road Repair Case

This essay analyzes a torts case involving Luke's company, "Gravel is Us," and its liability for injuries sustained by Ed during a road repair operation in Ohio. The company employed dynamite for blasting, and despite posting a guard and road signs, Ed entered the dynamiting zone due to the guard's negligence. The essay explores the legal principles of negligence and strict liability, focusing on the abnormally dangerous activity of blasting and the duty of care owed to the public. The analysis uses the IRAC method, examining the issue of liability, relevant rules of law, and applying them to the facts of the case to argue that Luke's company is liable for Ed's injuries. The conclusion supports Ed's claim, emphasizing the breach of duty by the guard and the inherent dangers of using explosives, thus establishing causation and damages that favor the plaintiff.

Issue
This paper involves the case of Luke’s company i.e. “Gravel is Us”, which was responsible for
repairing the road in the State of Ohio. In this case, the company appointed a guard and placed a
road sign on the highway to prohibit people and cars to enter into the site. However, the guard fell
asleep due to which Ed entered a dynamite zone. As a result, Ed had to suffer from injuries.
Rules
The courts perceive blasting (use of explosives) to be an abnormally dangerous activity due to the
inherent dangers. Thus, the rule of strict liability can be applied herein (Johnson, 2016). For
instance, in the case of Walczesky v. Horvitz Co., 26 Ohio St.2d 146, 269 N.E.2d 844 (1971), the
homeowner or the appellee i.e. Laura Jean filed a suit concerning property damages to the
Municipal Court of Shaker Heights against the defendant, which in this case is The Horvitz
Company (Horvitz). In this context, Laura Jean assumed that her property was damaged from
vibrations resulting from the blasting of explosives (dynamite) used by Horvitz at the time of
developing a highway for the state. Herein, the Supreme Court of Ohio confirmed the judgment
made by the trial court and favored the homeowner. The decision was based on the fact that there
was negligence, which states a contractor or the company, who uses explosives expose themselves
to liability without any fault. This falls under the principle of Respondent superior (Shuey 2014).
Thus, in this case, the employer (Luke’s Company) can be held strictly liable for the damage
caused to Ed under Restatement (Third) of Torts § 20, cmt. (e) (Klein 2001).
Analysis
As per common negligence law, it can be affirmed that Ed can file a suit against Luke’s Company
based on strict liability. This is because the appointed guard was not active when Ed entered the
repair site due to which the latter did not have any idea regarding the blast caused due to the use of
explosives at the construction site of the road.

Conclusion
Based on the facts related to the case, the court can give its decision in favor of Ed, as the guard
breached the duty of care to make people aware of the ongoing construction of the highway,
thereby showing negligence. The use of explosives under the law of negligence and strict liability
is considered to be a dangerous activity. Herein, the fact related to causation and damages is
adequate for the court to favor the plaintiff (i.e. Ed), who was harmed due to the explosion in the
construction site from the activity conducted by Luke’s Company.

References
Johnson, E. E 2016. ‘Torts: Cases and context’, eLangdell Press, pp. 25-656.
Klein, R. D 2001. ‘A comparison of the restatement (third) of torts: Products liability and the
Maryland law of products liabilit’. University of Baltimore Law Review, vol. 30, iss. 2, pp. 276-
340.
Shuey, S 2014. ‘Relevant facts’, Memorandum, pp. 1-5.