Business Law and Ethics
Since Bob is responsible for the serious injuries inflicted on Amy through careless driving, Amy has the right to sue Bob for the tort of negligence. Within the guiding principles of the Law of Torts, negligence amounts to failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing physical injury to others or their property (Okrent 22). In our case, Bob’s wrong of careless driving caused an accident that inflicted serious physical injuries on Amy. Amy is therefore required by law to sue for damages based on negligence. These damages are to compensate Amy for the medical fees spent and for the time spent off work, due to loss of income.
Based on the US justice system, the jurisdiction over this particular is within Washington and Colorado states. Both states receive jurisdiction if only the suit is filed in a Federal Court. Federal courts unlike State courts are authorized to hear cases which involve two opposing parties from different states (Wilson 75). Since the damages payable to Amy exceed $75,000, the Federal courts in either Washington or Colorado are granted subject matter jurisdiction. However, since Amy moved to Washington State due to a job transfer, and Bob also resides in Washington State, in this case the Washington state may have jurisdiction over the case.
Bob on his way to attend a business meeting caused a severe accident that led to the injury of Amy. According to the Tort theories, Amy is allowed to sue Bob’s employer, who is Northwest Grinds. The doctrine of “let the master answer for his servant” in the Law of Torts holds employers liable for wrongs committed by employees in course of duty, in spite of the employers failure to authorize the action or the employers inability to prevent the injury inflicted on the third party (Goldberg and Zipursky 21). Therefore, Amy can sue Bob’s employer, that is the company that Bob’s works for, in order to be compensated for the injuries. This is regardless of the employer’s involvement or non-involvement in the injuries since Bob was in course of duty when the accident occurred.
In the event that Amy sues Bob and Northwest Grinds in State Court in Washington, Bob cannot remove the case from the State Court to the Federal Court since the State Court in Washington has personal jurisdiction over the case. This is because both the plaintiff and the defendant’s domicile and presence in Washington allows the State Court in Washington to preside over the case. Moreover, the plaintiff is allowed to sue a defendant in the State where the defendant’s headquarters are located (Klerman 3). Therefore, Bob’s company- Northwest Grinds are located in Washington State, therefore, Bob has no justification to move the case from the State Court in Washington to the Federal courts in the same state.
If BOB wants the case to proceed to Colorado, Bob can argue under diversity jurisdiction that his domicile has changed to a different state. Under the diversity jurisdiction, State Courts are not allowed to preside over cases that involve two opposing parties from different states. Therefore, if Bob domicile or place of business in Colorado supersedes that of Washington, Bob can remove the case from the State Courts to the Federal Courts in Colorado, in case most of his time and presence will be in Colorado while Amy is in a different state, which is Washington (Wilson 75).
Goldberg, John and Benjamin Zipursky, C. The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.
Klerman, Daniel. Rethinking Personal Jurisdiction. Sept. 20, 2013. Web. 15 Sept. 2015. <http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/LEO/Klerman_RethinkingPersonalJurisdiction.pdf>.
Okrent, Cathy. Torts and Personal Injury Law. Stamford, Mass.: Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.
Wilson, Steven Harmon. The U.S. Justice System: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2012. Print.