Wilkens Is the Owner of the Beehives;

¶ … Wilkens is the owner of the beehives; Tom White is a businessperson who operates in the line of products from bees. Santo Baglieri, is an employee, working for Tom White in Wilkens property. From the case, it is apparent that the employer (Tom White) provided protective care, or rather a protective suit to his employee (Santo Baglieri). This act suggests that the employer recognized the possible harm that may arise when dealing with bees. In addition, neither the employer (Tom White) nor the beehive owner (Wilkens) verbally warned the employee (Santo Baglieri) of the dangers involved when dealing with bees.

Although earlier in the case, it is apparent that the employer (Tom White) provided a protective suit for his employee, it is apparent that he assumes that his employee (Santo Baglieri) is aware of the dangers involved. This is the most appropriate reason why the employer (Tom White) does not verbally warn his employee (Santo Baglieri) of the potential risks. Later on, the employer (Tome White) and the beehive owner (Wilken) drive off to pick other beehives for the same business. We see the employee (Santo Baglieri) opening his veil, providing a way for the bees to get to him. The employee does not survive, and his family opts to sue Wilkens and white for negligence.

Negligence consists of conduct that brings about an unreasonable threat of harm. In addition, under the law, a person is negligent if one does not exercise appropriate care under all situations. Into the bargain, a person is under a duty to all others at all times to exercise appropriate care for the safety of other people and property. The main activity or occurrence that may form the basis, or may subsequently assist in the building of a legal case against White and Wilken, is the fact that they did not verbally warn the employee, Santo Baglieri of the potential risk that bees may cause. However, the plaintiff (Santo's family) will have to prove under no reasonable doubt that indeed Wilken and White were negligent as outlined under law.

Under law, an action for negligence comprises of five aspects, which the plaintiff must prove under no reasonable doubt. The aspects include the duty of care, breach of duty, factual cause, harm and scope of liability. Therefore, the plaintiff (Santo's family) will have to prove that the defendant (White and Wilken) did not comply with the level of conduct concerning protection for others. Santo's family will also have to prove that the defendant failed to provide reasonable care to Santo. In addition, Santo's family will have to prove without reasonable doubt that Wilken and White's failed to apply reasonable care that may have resulted to harm or possible death sustained by Santo.

If Santo's family fails to prove the above without reasonable doubt, White and Wilken will not have a case to answer. Under the law, when determining whether a given person was negligent, the law will consider several factors. In this case, the factor that may apply is to consider whether the burden of exercising precautions to reduce or eliminate the potential risk of harm. White provides a protective suit to Santo; this action is enough proof that indeed Wilken and White showed concern for the employee. However, the employee opens the veil which suggests that it was out of the employee's a mistake that led to his death.

In addition, White's act suggests that he had a duty to act. Providing the protective suit is an act that reveals he excercised reasonable care for the safety of Santo. This also suggests that White and Wilken did not create risk of harm to Santo. Employers should provide protection to their employees, to protect them against an accident. In this case, White provides a protective garment; therefore, under the statute they have no case to answer. Owing to the fact that Santo had a family, it is clear that he was careful, prudent and never negligent, unless proven otherwise. In conclusion, the events or accident in this case, arises from the employee's (Santo) own negligence, which is apparent when he opens his veil.

Case Analysis 2

In this case, Glendale Motor Company leased a building from Pasquale, a building, which later burnt down, but the Motor Company restored. Because the building had insurance, Pasquale was legitimate to have compensation. This made the Motor Company sue Pasquale in order to obtain the funds they used to restore the building. However, before the Motor Company could take the case to the court, Pasquale offered them $190, 000, which the Motor Company accepted, but after agreeing on a condition of a new lease, but the next day, Pasquale notified the Motor Company of their intent to revoke the settlement. This made the Motor Company try to pursue the initial offer.

Under the law, a lease is a contract, whereby the land owner, proprietor (lesser) gives another person, the tenant (lessee), legitimate rights to use and possess the land or property for a definite period. However, the proprietor retains the sole ownership of the land or property. In this case, the Motor Company is the tenant whereas Pasquale is the property owner. When the building caught fire, the Motor Company offered to restore it; this may mean that the property owner was hesitant to restore it although it had insurance. Additionally, Pasquale is not willing to pay back the funds used by the Motor Company after the insurance company provides money for its restoration.

However, the Motor Company opts to go to court, which makes Pasquale offer the Motor Company $190,000. This may mean that Pasquale is not keen or is not capable of holding their other end of deal in the lease agreement. The law suggests that a verbal agreement is valid; however, it is appropriate to ask for the terms of lease, which must occur in writing. Therefore, incorporating this in our case, it is evident that the agreement the two had, of a new lease was valid. Later on, Pasquale revokes this agreement, which initiates an unfair settlement. In addition, several legal issues emerge in this case.

The property owner is not willing to refund the Motor Company the funds it used for restoring the building. Secondly, Pasquale revokes the agreement they had made with the Motor Company during the previous day. Therefore, an analysis of the two issues makes it apparent that the lawsuit is not settled. For this case, the insurance funds form the basis of the argument. Although the Motor Company was willing to accept the $190,000 offer, only if Pasquale agreed to a new offer for leasing, this has no grounds because Pasquale as the property owner has protection under law to agree or disagree to a tenant's condition.