Debate This: Carrier’s liability
Learning Goal: I’m working on a law discussion question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.
- Debate This: Carrier’s liability
- Chapter 41, p. 990
Vanessa Denai owned forty acres of land in rural Louisiana. On the property were a 1,600-square-foot house and a metal barn. Denai met Lance Finney, who had been seeking a small plot of rural property to rent. After several meetings, Denai invited Finney to live on a corner of her land in exchange for Finney’s assistance in cutting wood and tending her property. Denai agreed to store Finney’s sailboat in her barn.
With Denai’s consent, Finney constructed a concrete and oak foundation on Denai’s property and purchased a 190-square-foot dome from Dome Baja for $3,395. The dome was shipped by Doty Express, a transportation company licensed to serve the public. When it arrived, Finney installed the dome frame and fabric exterior so that the dome was detachable from the foundation. A year after Finney installed the dome, Denai wrote Finney a note stating, “I’ve decided to give you four acres of land surrounding your dome as drawn on this map.” This gift violated no local land-use restrictions. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
- Is the dome real property or personal property? Explain.
- Is Denai’s gift of land to Finney a gift causa mortis or a gift inter vivos?
- What type of bailment relationship was created when Denai agreed to store Finney’s boat? What degree of care was Denai required to exercise in storing the boat?
- What standard of care applied to the shipment of the dome by Doty Express?
Common carriers should not be able to limit their liability.
Common carriers should not be allowed to limit their liability. This is to protect the public to whom they offer carriage services from negligent acts. When the common carriers limit their liability, they relieve themselves from the injuries they may inflict on the passengers through their negligent actions (Miller, 2021). Also, they get relief from the properties that are damaged during transit. Limitations on their liability would leave the members of the public unprotected. This would be a constraint to the public use that the common carriers are meant for. When the common carriers are not allowed to limit their liability, they are held liable for damage, and loss of the priority that happens during the transportation (Miller, 2021). They are also held liable for the injury that happens to the passengers. This guarantees the public some level of protection. The protection is vital for carriers meant for public use (Miller, 2021). The care that was applied in the transportation of the dome by Doty Express was a strict liability. This is not ordinary care. It implies that Doty Express was liable for the loss or damage of the dome. With this, Doty Express had to exercise a high level of care so as to deliver the dome to Finney. Doty Express was a common carrier. If common carriers were allowed to limit their liability, the level of care required to transport the dome would be low. Strict liability would not apply to Doty Express. In light of this, the risk of the dome getting lost or damaged would be high. Dome is a real property since its acquisition involved some formality (Miller, 2021). A mutual benefit bailment is a relationship that was formed when Denai accepted storing Finney’s boat. An ordinary level of care is needed in such a relationship.
Miller, R. L. (2021). Business Law Today, Comprehensive. Cengage Learning.
PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO ANSWER THE REPLAY AND THE DEBATE THIS.