Samuel, a longtime employee of the ABCD Corporation, was injured when he fell off a ladder while stocking widgets at ABDC at their East Lansing, Michigan location. Samuel believes ABCD Corporation was negligent for selling widgets. If Samuel sues his employer in a circuit court under a negligence theory of recovery:
a. he will lose
b. he will win
c. he will forfeit his rights to workers compensation benefits, completely
d. he will forfeit his rights to workers compensation benefits, but only if the court awards him non-economic damages

If Samuel is desiring to sue his employer in a circuit court because he thinks that the employer was negligent then he will have to sue under negligence Act, which says that the employer is obliged to take all necessary precautions and if found negligent then the court may apply contributory negligent theory as well as comparative negligent theory. These two negligent theories means that the employer was partly responsible for injury, which means that this would result in compensation to Samuel.

Hence it is more likely that Samuel will win the case.

anthougo anthougo · Answer 2 · 2021-10-26T13:44:59+02:00

It is likely that if Samuel sues ABCD Corporation in a circuit court under a negligence theory of recovery, a. he will lose.

The question to ask is, is ABCD Corporation negligent in selling widgets? No. Is it the case that the corporation's sale of widgets caused Samuel to fall off a ladder while he was stocking them at the Michigan location? No.

For Samuel to be successful in the circuit court, he must prove that ABCD Corporation acted negligently with its sales of widgets, especially:

ABCD Corporation owed a duty to Samuel not to sell widgets
ABCD Corporation breached this duty to Samuel
ABCD's breach was the actual cause of Samuel's injury
ABCD's breach was also the proximate cause of Samuel's fall and injury
Samuel suffered actual damages as a result of the negligent act by ABCD Corporation.

Thus, based on the above, Samuel will lose the case because the corporation was not negligent for selling widgets nor for the fall of Samuel from the ladder.

Related: https://brainly.com/question/17101789