A water pipe bursts, flooding an Invidious Workplace Company utility room and tripping the circuit breakers on a panel in the room. Invidious contacts Jordan, a licensed electrician with five years experience, to check the damage and turn the breakers back on. Without testing for short circuits, which Jordan knows that she should do, she tries to switch on a breaker. Jordan is electrocuted and disabled, but survives to sue Invidious for damages, alleging negligence. What might Invidious claim in defense?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The company might defend against this electrician's claim by asserting that it had no duty to warn of a dangerous risk of which the electrician should have known. According to the problem, the danger is common knowledge in the electrician's field, and should have been clear to this electrician, given her years of training and experience. In other words, there was most likely no need for the company to warn the electrician of the risk. It would have been obvious to such a professional. The company could also raise comparative negligence as a defense. Both parties' negligence, if any, could be weighed and the liability distributed proportionately. Depending on the status of the state comparative negligence statute, the company could be absolved of having to pay damages. The defendant could also assert assumption of risk, claiming that the electrician voluntarily entered into a dangerous situation, knowing the risk involved.