No liability.

We have looked into the possibility of a case being filed against Arcadis on the basis
of tort under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Article 2176 states. Quote.

The elements of a tort under Article 2176 are as follows. Andamo case3 elements.
Tort liability may arise if it is established that Arcadis was guilty of fault or
negligence in providing alcohol at its Christmas party. Check jurisprudence of fault
or negligence

Fault or negligence is defined as the omission of that diligence which is required

article 1173

Furthermore, the SC has defined fault or negligence as failure to do what an

ordinarily prudent person, quote the pertinent phrase.

Moreover, the fault of negligence of the defendant must be the proximate cause of
the injury sustained of the injured party. Define proximate cause.. jurisprudence.

We do not believe that a case based on tort against Arcadis may be file for the 2
reasons:
1. We do not think that provided alcohol at a Christmas party attended by adults
constitutes fault or negligence or demonstrates a failure on Arcadis part
Moreover, we also understand based on your email that even prior to the party,
Arcadis circulated sufficient reminders to its employees David sends employee
comms before the party on health and safety (H&S) reminders to everyone - I'll
forward the comms separately - so if anyone was not feeling well, they knew that
they should not attend the party or, at the very least, immediately approach any of
our first aiders or H&S officers. Arcadis, in fact, provided emergency assistance
personnel would be present at the Christmas party for any untoward incidents.

Second, we also do not believe that Arcadis mere of act of making alcoholic drinks
at the party may be considered as the proximate cause of the employees death.
Providing alcoholic drinks at a party attended by responsible adults would not
necessarily lead to death or would create an unreasonable death.

Moreover, we believe that there would be defenses available to arcadis in the event
that it is sued for damages on the basis of tort. Among these are the following:
A. Assumption of risk
The assumption of risk defense provides that a person who voluntarily assumes the
risk of injury cannot sue another for the risk voluntarily assumed by him. Otherwise
stated, the assumption of risk defense has been stated as follows: that which a
person assents is not deemed in law to be an injury. Look for jurisprudence. Here, if
the employee was aware that he has a preexisting condition and he nevertheless
consumed alcoholic beverages, then it may be argued that he voluntarily assumed
the risks attendant to the consumption of alcohol despite his condition.

B. Article 2179 of the Civil Code provides that when the plaintiffs own
negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot
recover damages.
C.