SUBJECT: Negligence Requirements and Potential Defenses to Myra’s Claims
Before one can file for negligence, there are certain aspects they must fulfill to validate their claims. Winning a negligence suit requires individuals to demonstrate a party’s intent to extend harm willingly or involuntary (Okpaluba, 2012). By identifying the approaches that should have been used to protect the adverse outcomes from taking place, Myra should demonstrate CARDWARE’s involvement in the act of negligence that led to the accident where she received several injuries.
Significantly, Myra should demonstrate how CARDWARE owed a duty to Myra. Given that CARDWARE was working with Candie, Myra’s injury has no relation to CARDWARE. After establishing that CARDWARE did not owe Myra any duty, her negligence claims do not demonstrate and breach of duty since the corporation had no prior work relations with Myra. Even though their representative acted in a way that extended harm to her, it is impossible to locate the breach of duty caused by CARDWARE’s sweater product. In examining the accident’s cause, Myra’s nose was broken by Candie’s shoes, which are not part of CARDWARE’s product catalog. In the same vein, CARDWARE’s sweater did not contribute in any way to Candie’s fall, which ended up breaking Myra’s nose, and as such, Myra’s claims of negligence are invalid.
In this case, CARDWARE’s line of defense will revolve around contributory negligence, comparative fault, and the assumption of risk to invalidate Myra’s claims of negligence directed towards the corporation. Importantly, Myra should sue the organizers instead of CARDWARE because of the faulty runway that tripped Candie, causing her to fall on the judges’ table where Myra obtained her injuries. Likewise, CARDWARE’s negligence association is in a bad light because of the lack of any small contribution towards Candie’s fall. While a slight wrinkle triggered Candie’s fall on the carpet, Myra’s decision to sue CARDWARE demonstrates her foul play, which is meant to lower the corporation’s reputation in the business environment. Myra could have avoided the injury by ordinary care, where she could have moved away after noticing Candie’s fall from the stage.
Even though a small wrinkle caused Myra’s injury on the carpet that led to Candie’s fall, CARDWARE is only willing to be involved in the negligence case if Myra can prove its involvement in Candie’s fall. According to pure comparative negligence, Myra should only be compensated if she can demonstrate CARDWARE’s liability in Candie’s fall. Besides, Myra’s assumption of risk and her involvement in the competition despite being aware of the adverse outcomes that can occur in the event dismiss her claims of negligence, which she has attached to CARDWARE. In this regard, Myra was aware of the risks of attending the event and participating in the modeling competition as a judge. Therefore, Myra should sue the event organizers for their inability to ascertain the runway’s safety and its ability to handle the movements of different contestants.
By identifying the approaches that should have been used to protect the adverse outcomes from taking place, Myra should demonstrate CARDWARE’s involvement in the act of negligence that led to the accident where she received several injuries. In a negligence case, the plaintiff should prove the duty, breach, cause, and harm before suing another party for negligence.