Al's estate has indeed the right to take negligence action based on the Estae Administration Act, which states in s59(2) that "the executor ... of a deceased person may continue or bring and maintain an action for all loss or damage to the person or property of the deceased in the same manner and with the same rights and remedies as the deceased would, if living, be entitled to."
In Al's case, this would, in particular, refer to the damage done to Al's truck a,d would also include the cost of his funeral.
Al's estate would first and foremost name Roger as the primary defendant as Roger showed the highest degree of negligence. Roger had been hired by Quickfix Inc. to take charge of the vehicles on the barge. His duty of care included the locking of the security chain, the vacating of all vehicles, ensuring all vehicles would have their emergency brakes applied, and that no passengers were on board the barge. Roger acted with criminal negligence when he ignored Bev's request to get her husband as directed. Roger also had neglected to inform his supervisor that the lock had been broken for over three weeks. His negligence therefore breached the well established standard of care by the ferry corporation and represents a clear deviation from his responsibility. Roger would have no defence of due diligence that strict liability might offer as he not even tried to solve the issues before him. Roger, however, is a high school student without financial means. This makes it difficult for a liability suit against him to bring compensation about.
However, Roger is an employee of Quickfix Inc. Therefore, the doctrine of vicarious liability applies to his employer. As Roger's negligencewas work-related and took place while Roger was on the job, his employer, particularly his supervisor, Sylvia, would have been in charge of his activities. Quickfix is well able to pay the damages demanded by the plaintiff to compensate for the loss of the truck or damages as well as the cost of the funeral.
It is also important to look further to establish liability. Quickfix Inc. was operated under a license handed out by the Ministry of Transport in Ontario. SUch licenses are likely governed by statute, so that partof the liability falls to the MInistry of Transport under such a statute. This is particularly true as the Ministry had reduced its contractual obligations to inspect the ferry operations as set out in the license due to cost-cutting measures. The Ministry could argue that signs installed on the barge would have been sufficient to warn drivers of dangers. However, it is unreasonable to expect that drivers would be able to see or read these signs, especially on a dark night. Additional warnings through loudspeakers would have guaranteed compliance with the rules and regulations and would have gone a long way to act as due diligence defense for any negligence claims against the Ministry.
In assessing negligence, the principleof remoteness must be brought in as well. While Roger and Quickfix Inc were directly linked to the accident and had the ability to foresee any problems and deal with them on the spot, the Ministry could not have done so to the same degree. Neither could Olivia or Neil, both employed in the Memories Restaurant. Even though they contributed to Al's intoxiated state, it would have been impossible for them to foresee Al's death that night, especially since they had tried to minimize liability by asking if they had a safe way home.
It is therefore advised to claim damages from Quickfix Inc at 80% and from the Ministry of Transport at 20%.
