1

Business Management, Saskatchewan Polytechnic

LAW-600 Commercial Law

Instructor: Bisi Bamgboye

Group Case Study-2

Vishrut Mistry

Junaid

Parth Vyas

Prem

Due Date: October 8, 2023

 2

1.

Hanifa Multiservice is the name on the legal document of registration of vehicle, but

they did lease the vehicle to Hanifa Engineering. Although the vehicle’s liability for the

accident can not be directly attributed to Hanifa Engineering. However, without reading the

legal terms and conditions of the lease agreement between Hanifa Engineering and Hamel

Multiservice would be very vital in making the decision on who is guilty of the accident and

eventually the death of James Grenader. At the end, without proper evidence to prove anyone

guilty, we can not make faulty anyone.

2.

Hanifa Engineering had a company policy on not allowing any employees to drive the

company vehicles without a valid driver’s license. The owner of Hanifa Engineering was

aware and given the permission to James Grenader to drive, the company was not knowing

that Daniel Naveta was driving the vehicle. In only one case, Hanifa Engineering would be

liable if it can be proved that they knew about Daniel Naveta was driving the company

vehicle without a valid driver’s license. Another fact is that they benefited from James’s

driving could also play a crucial role in this case. Hanifa Engineering could also not be at

fault without proper evidence against them to prove them guilty in this case.

3.

Daniel Naveta and James Grenader were already aware of the company’s policy that

without a valid driver’s license, they are not allowed to drive the company’s vehicle, and they

have signed the concerned document. Hanifa Engineering hasn’t given consent to Daniel in

any form to drive the van without a valid driving license. It is James' decision to provide the

vehicle for Daniel to drive without knowing that he does not have a valid driver’s license. But

depending on the circumstances, Hanifa Engineering might have known that the employees
 3

would switch and take over the driving duties during the long trip. However, the company

policies are clear and against unlicensed persons, not driving the vehicle.

4.

Daniel Naveta could be held liable for the death of James Grenader because driving

without a valid license and driving after the consumption of alcohol will be considered as a

strict liability depending upon the jurisdiction. But the liability also depends upon the various

factors and circumstances that caused the death of James Grenader. And Daniel might not be

held liable because even though he doesn’t hold any license he got authorization from James

to drive the vehicle and the negligence factor is that Daniel knows that he is not a valid

driver, but he chooses to drive the vehicle.

5.

There is no indication in the scenario that James Grenader, the passenger in the van,

was responsible for his own death. Guilt is commonly associated with some level of

responsibility or culpability for one's own actions or decisions that lead to harm or

undesirable results. However, in this circumstance, James was not driving the vehicle and had

no control over Daniel Naveta's actions or judgments. Even though he drank which was not

allowed on during duty hours, but he was not driving and had no idea that Daniel had no

license to drive.

The driver, Daniel Naveta, is principally responsible for the event because he was the

one driving the car and purportedly caused the collision by failing to stop at a stop sign and

crashing with a telephone pole. To ascertain the level of culpability for all parties involved,

proper investigation and legal actions would be required.

 4

6.

A detailed examination of the facts, applicable laws, and legal concepts is required to

determine how a court should assign blame in a situation like in the case mentioned. Each

party's contributory carelessness can be used to determine liability. Here's an example of how

a court may divide liability in this instance, along with the reasoning:

For Daniel Naveta:

Daniel Naveta was driving the van without having a valid driving license and had

consumed alcohol before driving the van, both of which are apparent breaches of business

policy and certainly violations of traffic rules. Along with it he also failed to stop at a stop

sign, due to which the van crashed. Daniel’s action caused the accident and the death of

James Grenader.

As a result of his irresponsible and reckless behavior, a judge may assign Daniel Naveta

a considerable share of the blame, and the majority of the blame goes to Daniel.

For Hanifa Engineering LTD.

Hanifa Engineering was aware that Daniel Naveta did not have a driver's license, and

the company had a policy prohibiting employees without valid permits from driving company

vehicles. While Hanifa Engineering was not directly responsible for the accident, it may be

held partially liable for failing to follow its own procedures and allowing Daniel Naveta to

drive. A judge may assign Hanifa Engineering some of the blame for their inability to check

policy compliance.

For Hamel Multiservice:

 5

Hanifa Engineering's rental car is registered to Hamel Multiservice. Vehicle owners are

often held liable for the actions of others who drive their vehicles under the idea of vicarious

responsibility. Hamel Multiservice may be mentioned in the lawsuit due to their ownership of

the vehicle in this case. A judge may place some guilt on Hamel Multiservice, but it may be

less than the liability placed on Daniel Naveta and Hanifa Engineering because their actions

were more closely related to the accident.

The distribution of responsibility would be determined by Alberta and Saskatchewan

laws and precedents, the quality of evidence produced in court, and any other relevant

circumstances that may emerge throughout the legal procedures. When evaluating liability,

courts frequently apply the concept of comparative negligence, which suggests that each

party's level of guilt is assessed, and blame is assigned appropriately.