Jacobsen vs Nike - 1473 Words

Individual Assignment - ENMN 430 Erkens Gjini Legal Case Brief Jacobson vs. Nike Canada Inc., Instructor: Connie Carter November 9th, 2014 Introduction In the case of Jacobsen vs. Nike Canada Ltd, Mr. Jacobsen an employer of Nike Canada Ltd was seriously injured in a car accident as a result of alcohol consumption while at work. This paper will prove that the defendant (Nike Canada Ltd.) was negligent in all the four elements of â€Å"Negligence â€Å" and therefore liable for the injuries. Also it will explain for any legal defense that the employer (Nike Canada Ltd.) might be able to raise. Relevant Facts. Mr. Jacobsen was an employee of Nike Canada Ltd. The employer, through its representative, supplied the†¦show more content†¦Was there a breach of standard of care? Nike is obligated to provide a safe working environment particularly if the job is inherently dangerous. The employer (Nike) must hire competent representatives. Nike’s representative, supplied the workers with considerable amounts of beer. Providing alcohol while at work jeopardizes work safety and as a result breaches the duty of care that the employer is obligated to provide. Causation? It is very clear that alcohol consumption is the main cause of the accident. Applying the â€Å"but for† test we can say: but for consuming the alcohol, the collision would not have occurred. Damages? Nike failed to exercise reasonable care and as a result Mr. Jacobsen was involved in a single-vehicle accident, which left him with physical damages (quadriplegic). Counter Argument - Assumption of Risk and Contributory Negligence Nike could use assumption of risk and contributory negligence as part of their defense and show that the plaintiffs negligence contributed to the accident. Although Nike provided alcohol in the work place it could argue that Jacobsen was voluntary drinking and was aware of the danger arising from driving intoxicated. Therefore, he knew the risk and voluntarily assumed the risk by engaging in the behavior. Also Nike could claim that it does not owe a duty of care to Jacobsen because he was released of his duties when he was driving. Case Law Crocker v.