Negligence Risks and Liabilities in Clean’s Public Business Facility

Words: 779 Pages: 4

Introduction

Negligence cases are a part of civil law, and they imply compensation as a punishment (Diffen, n.d.).
Negligent behavior involves both actions and omissions (Legal Information Institute, n.d.b).
Compensation can be adjudged if a negligence claim implies five elements, including duty, breach of duty, cause in effect, proximate cause, and damages (FindLaw, 2019).
The presentation will identify three potential negligence risks/liabilities and ways to prevent and minimize those risks in Clean-n-Shine’s public facility.

Slip and fall cases are widespread manifestations of negligence risks (Nolo, n.d.).
As for Clean, this liability can emerge if a client falls on the company’s property, for example, because of wet or oily floors.
Clean should be held responsible since the client suffers damages because of the defective condition of the company’s property (Nolo, n.d.).

Inadequate building security cases are typical in apartment buildings and offices.
The liability arises if a person breaks into Clean’s business facility and assaults or kills someone.
According to Nolo (n.d.), owners of premises “have a duty to act reasonably in securing access to the buildings” (para. 15).

Toxic fumes and chemical cases are the third examples of Clean’s potential negligence risk.
Since the company provides its clients with an opportunity to buy cleaning products, these individuals can be subject to the harmful impact of these substances.
For example, a person can inhale toxic evaporation and get sick.
The company should be held liable because it must ensure that its products are “adequately contained, packaged, and labeled” (Legal Information Institute, n.d.a, para. 2).

Ways to prevent slip and fall cases from happening include:
Avoid cleaning the floor when the business facility is open to customers.
Using warning signs if the floor gets wet or oily.
Leading occupational safety discussions with employees.
If the preventive measures fail to work and a slip and fall case has happened, Clean should think over its possible defense to minimize the liability.
Possible excuses are as follows:
Stating that the injured individual voluntarily accepted the risk if a warning side was used.
Comparative negligence is a useful way to minimize liability if it is possible to prove that the victim is also responsible for their injury.
If the accident happens in a state where the rule of contributory negligence is in effect, Clean can entirely avoid liability (Introduction to Tort Law, n.d.).

A few options can help prevent inadequate building security cases from occurring.
These actions will not allow offenders to break into the facility, and they include:
Having doorman or security guards.
Equipping an alarm system.
If the preventive measures have not managed to save Clean from an inadequate building security case, the company should draw attention to the following excuses:
Act of God, meaning that the company could not prevent the case because it was beyond its control.
Vicarious liability. This excuse can be used if a drunk person assaults or kills people in Clean’s facility. In this case, the responsibility should be given to the bar or tavern owners who have served too much alcohol to the offender (Introduction to Tort Law, n.d.).

It is possible to avoid toxic fumes or chemical cases. The practical steps include the following:
Working with reliable manufacturers and suppliers of these substances.
Ensuring that the products are adequately packaged and stored.
If a toxic fume or chemical case occurs, Clean can avoid paying compensation by insisting on the following:
The injured party could prevent the issue by following occupational safety standards.
The rules of comparative and contributory negligence can also be used.
Assumption of risk will be useful if Clean manages to prove that the injured party was warned about possible harmful outcomes.

Clean-n-Shine is subject to many negligence risks, including slip and fall, inadequate building security, and toxic fumes or chemical cases.
The preventive measures are to use warning signs, increase the facility security, contribute to adequate storage of the substances, and others.
The list of possible excuses includes the assumption of risk, the act of God, comparative and contributory negligence, and vicarious liability.
The choice of the specific defense option depends on the details of the case and an injured individual’s behavior that preceded the incident.

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.b). Negligence.