rewrite/give feedback on how to better this analysis and conclusion post
this is one of my peers post
FACT SUMMARY: After the fire on July 5th on WOD Chemical Company the abnormal high level of sulfur was content the Russian River and the wine producers start to complain that their wine grapes vines were suffering, and grapes were shriveling and dying. Some claim the plant has been dumping Sulfur waste into the river for years, or it maybe came from the fire, or from the different leak on the plant. Trifork Winery has filed suit against WOD for monetary damages.
ANALYSIS: The negligence of tort law should contain duty of care, breach, causation and damages. In that case we see the duty of care of WOD Chemical Company to save clean environment and maintaining the healthy environment for the public. The leak of sulfur on the river was caused by something, as checks were carried out throughout the entire time by State Agencies and it’s level was always normal. So, first, we should identify the true reason of the leak. Was it really came from WOD Chemical Company plant? If yes, for which exactly reason? Is it came from the fire occurred on July 5th? Or did they actually dump sulfur waste into the river for the years as it was claimed?
The answers on above mentioned questions can help us to understand: Is this case belongs to the negligence of tort law or it is other intent violence of law? However, should be identified the true reason of wine grape vines and grapes damages, because it may have no connection with a leak of sulfur, if so, there is no guilty of WOD Chemical Company up to Trifork Winery.
“SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY V. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY” case during which the decision was overturned stating that a massive natural gas leak at a SoCalGas which causes purely economic loss under negligence theories when the precipitating event was a mass tort, didn’t cause the personal injury, property damage, or the requisite transaction for the seven businesses which filed suit to recover damages for purely economic loss.
CONCLUSION: If we can prove that the damages on Trifork Winery were caused by WOD Chemical Company it will be a negligence case and they should b punished for the damages occurred on winery by fines. If the damages are occurred without the WOD Chemical Company fault, the defendant is not guilty and not responsible for the monetary damages.
or you can choose this one
ANALYSIS: If WOD had taken proper precautions or had the right procedures to mitigate the risk, this wouldn’t have happened. The fire from the overheating machinery has created havoc in the Grapevine. The sulfur from the machinery has leaked to the adjacent river, which has damaged the Vineyard owners’ livelihood. WOD is solely liable for the disaster resulting from a breach of duty of care. There is an economic loss to the vineyard owners due to the dead grapes from the vines and suffering vineyards. There is a potential risk to the people who consume the water that has been polluted with sulfur, which may result in unexpected and grave health issues.
CONCLUSION: Since WOD has fulfilled all the four elements of negligence, it is liable to cover all the monetary damages Trifork Winery has faced. Therefore, WOD is liable to pay up for the damages incurred to the Trifork winery.
( this one is the one you wrote last time if you need reference or to remember )
A fire occurred on July 5th at WOD Chemical Company’s Geyserville sulfur plant. The fire was allegedly caused by an explosion of one of the company’s sulfur tanks due to overheating machinery using a self-made insulating device. The event resulted in the massive dumping of sulfur into the nearby Russian River. In August, wine producers noticed deterioration in their vines, which were withering and dying. Analysis showed abnormally high sulfur content levels, whose source the producers suspected to be the WOD fire or a leak at the facility. Trifork Winery has filed a suit against WOD for resultant monetary damages.
Trifork Wineries has filed for damages against WOD. This case will require a review of the negligence theory as applicable, given the available facts and previous relevant court cases. Firstly, WOD Chemicals Company meets the duty element since they knew the adverse effects of their chemical compounds on the local ecosystem. Secondly, the defendant breached their duty to the local community by implementing self-made insulating devices, which a ‘reasonable prudent person’ may have avoided to prevent potential calamity. According to the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company (1928), “It was not necessary that the defendant should have had notice of the particular method in which an accident would occur if the possibility of an accident were clear to the ordinarily prudent eye.” Thirdly, according to the available facts, the plaintiff, alongside other wine producers, did suffer damages due to the high sulfur contents. Most importantly, the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damage because it directly caused the elevation of sulfur levels, which ultimately caused the damage. According to Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company (1928), there is a “natural and continuous sequence between cause and effect.” Although there is a significant period between the event and its effects, the time the contaminated water takes to seep into the soil and manifest its impact on the vines can explain this disparity.
The defendant is liable for negligence for the damages experienced by Trifork Wineries
( please let me know if you want me to add some examples of how to rewrite or give feedback to a post )