Negligence F-IRAC ANALYSIS and Reply & CONCLUSION

Case:

WOD Chemical Company operates a plant on the Russian River, outside of Geyserville, CA. The plant produces a sulfur compound used on wine grapes. This plant has been in operation for about 25 years. On July 5th, a fire (caused by overheating machinery using a self-made insulating devise) in the plant caused an explosion of one of its sulfur tanks resulting in massive dumping of sulfur into the nearby Russian River. In August local wine producers noticed their wine grape vines were suffering, and grapes were shriveling and dying. Local River analysis showed abnormally high levels of sulfur content and it was speculated that the sulfur either came. directly from the fire based explosion, or there was some other leak at WOD. (Some claim the plant has been dumping Sulfur waste into the river for years although the river is regularly inspected by State Agencies) .The California Health Department and other government agencies in response to the recent sulfur levels, posted notices along all public access points warning the public of these sulfur levels and potential health risks from direct consumption of river water. Trifork Winery has filed suit against WOD for monetary damages.

Start your analysis with a fact summary. In a separate paragraphs present the general rule, elements and defenses interwoven with facts, questions of missing facts, hypotheticals, and case authority to illustrate and support your analysis.  Remember not all facts are given in great depth and therefore there may be questions raised about them which will be relevant to your analysis.  Your reply must be substantive (not about format), identify areas which might be improved, explain reason, provide rewrite

Negligence F-IRAC ANALYSIS and Reply & CONCLUSION Answer

Your general rule statement does not start at the beginning.             Generally, to prove negligence, a plaintiff can ask the court for a remedy on the conditions that the plaintiff proves he or she suffered a loss (which was caused by the defendant(s) negligence), and also proves that the loss was reasonably foreseeable. In other words, liability for negligence hinges on whether there was a failure to live up to a duty of care resulting in injury to another, which is legally recognizable.  A defendant’s intent is not the measuring stick for a valid negligence claim.