Nemo v. Smith Nemo was an owner/operator of an over-the-road trucking service. H

Question

Nemo v. Smith

Nemo was an owner/operator of an over-the-road trucking service. He made shipments under contract using his truck. Smith was the owner of four wild tigers. He contracted with Nemo to have the tigers trucked across the country. The contract (that Smith drafted) contained a clause that stated that Smith could not be held liable for any injuries caused by the tigers. Nemo accepted this clause and signed the contract. The animals were placed in cages and loaded into Nemo's truck. Smith was in a hurry to complete the loading and did not securely lock one of the tiger's cages. During the trip, while Nemo was getting fuel at a truck stop, the tiger escaped and severely injured Nemo. Nemo sued Smith for his injuries. Smith argued that the case should be dismissed because the agreement clearly stated that Smith could not be held liable for any injury caused by the tigers.

Decide this case, and discuss your decision and reasoning in depth.

Explanation / Answer

Nemo should not be held responsible in this case because there was a clear clause in a contract regarding injury caused by the tigers. He clearly stated that he is not liable for any injury caused by the tigers which was approved by Smith.

On the other hand Smith should take up the responsibility in managing the tigers. Hence he cannot blame Nemo for such a consequence. Hence the case should be dismised

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse N
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.