Course:Torts & Personal Injury: PLG-101-2007

Assignment:Assignment 4 - Negligence & Strict Liability

Luke owns a contracting company that is hired by the state of Ohio to do some road repairs on I-70, outside of Columbus. Part of this work includes using dynamite to blast away some dangerous rock and overhangs on top of the road. Luke's company, "Gravel is Us" closes down the road, as they are allowed to do, and commences the dynamiting procedure. The company posts a guard on the highway to make sure that no cars enter the area.

Unfortunately, the guard falls asleep on the job and Ed, who does not see the road closure sign, drives right into the dynamiting zone. Ed's car is hit by a falling rock (that was blasted) and Ed suffers severe injuries.

Luke argues that he was not negligent at all and therefore cannot be liable. Even if his guard fell asleep, Luke argues, the sign should have been adequate warning. In any case, the blasting was done in a completely safe manner and any injuries suffered by Ed can only be attributed to bad luck.

Ed comes to your firm for legal representation. Please write an essay for Ed,arguing for him and against Luke. Please discuss as many issues as you like as to why Ed should be able to recover from Luke.

Note that this assignment is a position paper. I am telling you which side you are on and which side to argue for. Unless you work for a judge, this is the position you will usually be in.

An IRAC-style essay IS appropriate for this assignment.