Acompany that owned a tract of land believed to be rich in mineral deposits contracted with a licensed excavator for the removal of soil from the property and delivery of the soil to the company’s laboratories. while one of the excavator’s trucks was on the way to the laboratory, the rear gate broke loose, dumping three tons of soil onto the highway. a motorist who was driving a short but safe distance behind the truck was unable to stop in time and collided with the soil, causing her serious injury. the rear gate had been negligently secured by one of the excavator’s employees. if the motorist sues the company for his injuries and does not prevail, what is the most likely reason?

the first part is ocean

explanation:

answer; i believe the correct answer is (federalist);

your answer is rising unemployment and inflation.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.