Thefacts of thecase are thatGreiff Brothers are theemployers of Lowell Wilson. Lowell Wilson hired Youngtown Security Patrol Inc to providesecurityfortheplant. It is also a factthat Mr. Lowell acted with powersbestowed upon him by theplant’s management. Thecounsel can, therefore, draw a linethatconnectsthedeath of Mr. Derell Pusey to theactions of employees of theGreiff Brothers company. Thissituationpresents a chanceforthe firm to usevicariousliability as groundsforsuingthecompany (Cane, 1997. Thecompanyacted through its superintendent to hire a firm on which they should haveconductedduediligence. Counsel can arguethatGreiff Brothers, through its superintendent, wasresponsiblefortheactions of Youngtown Security Patrol and its agents. Theclaimant has a veryhighprobability of successifshechose to go with thistheory. She can provethatGreiff Brothers knewwhomitwashiringbecauseitused a high ranking member of thestaff to dothehiring. It is alsorelativelyeasy to arguethat a company of Greiff Brothers’ stature would not hire a firm without looking at the firm’s operationsandestablishingthattheoperationsmetsetstandards. Sothecounsel can provethat:

a) Thehighest levels of thecompanyknew about thehiring of YSP Inc.

b) Thecompanyconducted a duediligence of thecompanyandestablishedthat YSP Inc. wascompetentenough to handletheassignment.

In conclusion, thebestargument to useforthiscase is thatGreiff Brothers is vicariously liableforanyactionstheemployees of its subcontractors may take. Thisargument will workbecauseYSP Inc washired by a seniormember of Greiff Brothers andthecompanyhadtheresources to conduct a thoroughcheck of YSP Inc.

References

Cane, P. (1997). The anatomy of tort law. Oxford: Hart Publ.