Liability of Extortionate PLC for Injuries Sustained by Samantha

This essay evaluates the liability of Extortionate PLC for the injuries sustained by Samantha and discusses the ethical considerations and possible defenses.

Business Law and
Ethics

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY- TASK 1...................................................................................................................3
Tort and Duty of Care..................................................................................................................3
Extortionate PLC’s Liability towards Injuries Sustained by Samantha......................................4
Ethical Considerations of Extortionate PLC Bank......................................................................5
Possible Defence for Extortionate PLC.......................................................................................6
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
People can unfortunately face accidents or injuries at other operational places such as
offices, banks, shops or other organisations, due to many reasons with these accidents or injuries
often having severe or lasting consequences for the person who faced the accident or injuries in
addition to their families and friends. This is why there are several legally mandated rules and
regulations placed by governing authorities to safeguard and protect individuals from unfortunate
accidental injuries and mishaps (Deakin and Markesinis, 2019). This essay takes into account the
case study of Samantha who faced an accident and sustained injuries at Extortionate PLC bank
and who is liable for the accident and ethical considerations of the Extortionate PLC bank.
MAIN BODY- TASK 1
Tort and Duty of Care
In common law jurisdictions, a tort is a civil wrong which causes an individual to suffer
accidents, injuries or harm, which can make the party responsible for the occurrence of the tort
towards the affected individual legally liable for accident. The reasons for occurrence of tort can
vary from various factors such as negligence of the party who committed tortious act, emotional
distress of the individual who ended up suffering from tort, intoxication, in addition to numerous
other factors. For overlooking legal cases where an act of tort causes personal injuries or
unfortunate accident to occur to an individual, a common civil law is created called the tort law
(Wright, 2017). This tort law analyses the which party involved in the accident can be held as
liable for the unfortunate accident and injuries sustained by the individual and also evaluates the
level of civil wrong being done by the liable party, in order to provide the tort affected individual
with relevant and valid relief which is based on the level of civil wrong that has been committed
by the liable party. The tort law imposes fines and penalties on the party it judges to be liable for
the occurrence of the tort due to which an individual has suffered accident or injuries in order to
provide them with justice and relevant relief based on the level of civil wrong that has been
committed by the liable party or individual. According to the tort law, on the basis of the level of
civil wrong being done, the party affected from the tort can demand from the liable party

monetary compensations or can be compensated through other methods such as injunctions or
restitutions.
Duty of Care is a legal, fiduciary and ethical requirement of all organisations whether
business or public, to provide and enforce standardised levels of care to all of its stakeholders
and others individuals involved within its organisational premises. Often times, Duty of Care is
regarded as an implicit ethical responsibility of all organisations, but it is always in all of the
organisational stakeholder’s best interests to form a written contract on the Duty of Care that is
to be provided to them on the premises of the organisations. Duty of Care encourages all
organisations to make ethical, legal operational decisions which are in the best interests of all
their stakeholders, in relation to their health and safety within the organisation’s premises, after
taking into account the given situation and analysing all relevant information related in a
thorough manner so as to not let negligence of the organisation become any factor in their
decision making approach through which standardised Duty of Care is failed to be provided to its
stakeholders within its organisational premises (Morris, Chawla and Francis, 2019). If any public
or business organisation fails to provide its stakeholders with standardised Duty of Care within
its premises, this can jeopardise the health and safety of its involved stakeholders within the
premises of the organisation through which the organisation, its management and leadership can
be held liable for their negligence in providing legally mandated Duty of Care to their
stakeholders in an effective manner.
Extortionate PLC’s Liability towards Injuries Sustained by Samantha
On the basis of the provided case study, this essay judges Extortionate PLC to be liable
for the accident and injuries sustained by Samantha, in accordance with the tort law and Duty of
Care that was to be provided to Samantha on the Extortionate PLC bank’s premises. This
judgement is based on careful consideration of the facts in the case study, which highlight to us
the gross negligence of the leadership and management of Extortionate PLC in relation to
providing effective Duty of Care to all its employees and customers within its premises, which
directly resulted in the accident suffered by Samantha and her sustained injuries. This negligence
in providing effective Duty of Care to Samantha is the reason why Extortionate PLC is liable for
Samantha’s accident.

The negligence of leadership and management of Extortionate PLC in providing its
employees and customers with standardised Duty of Care is highlighted to us in the case study,
through the fact that the carpet on its stairs had been coming away from the sides significantly
which could not have happened had the leadership and management of Extortionate PLC taken
notice of the situation and addressed with the intention to providing standardised Duty of Care to
others (Goldberg, Sebok, and Zipursky, 2016). This lapse in Duty of Care resulted in Samantha
falling off from the stairs where she put her hands in front of her to protect herself from the fall,
which is a common human reflex, resulting in her wrist being broken from the fall. The gross
negligence of Extortionate PLC is further showcased to us, through the presence of exposed nails
at the bottom of the stairs at Extortionate PLC. During the fall as Samantha tried to protect
herself, she ended up sustaining further injuries from these exposed nails at the bottom of the
stairs which would not be present had the management and leadership of Extortionate PLC taken
due diligence in providing their stakeholders with effective Duty of Care within their premises
(Plunkett, 2018). The final proof that cements the liability of Extortionate PLC relates to the fact
that many other customers of Extortionate PLC had also fallen down the same stairs and
sustained injuries, something which was made apparent to the leadership and management of
Extortionate PLC and still they failed to address out of negligence towards providing
standardised Duty of Care.
Ethical Considerations of Extortionate PLC Bank
There are several ethical requirements and considerations that Extortionate PLC bank
owes to all of its stakeholders in addition to the general public. It is a legal, moral and ethical
duty of the leadership and management of Extortionate PLC bank to provide the public and its
stakeholders with standardised level of Duty of Care within its premises, which would
effectively safeguard and ensure the protection of their safety and health within the Extortionate
PLC bank’s operational premises (Best, Barnes and Kahn-Fogel, 2018). When the bank was
made aware of the several incidents where their customers were suffering from falls at their
operational stairs within their premises, it was also an ethical and legal requirement of the
leadership and management of Extortionate PLC to address these issues within their premises, so
that effective Duty of Care could have been provided to the public within the banking
organisations’ premises. Currently, the ethical consideration of Extortionate PLC bank relates to
owning up to their own mistakes and negligence because of which many of their customers

including Samantha suffered accidents and injuries within their premises, and reimburse them for
the damages caused in accordance with the tort laws, instead of fighting the case in legal
litigations.
Possible Defence for Extortionate PLC
As it is evident for all to see through the case study, that the injuries sustained by
Samantha occurred due to the gross negligence of Extortionate PLC bank’s leadership and
management in providing its stakeholders with standardised Duty of Care within their
operational premises, with the intention to safeguarding and protecting the health and safety of
their stakeholders, this gross negligence of Extortionate PLC makes it impossible for
Extortionate PLC to possess any kind of reasonable defence against Samantha in legal litigations
(Moreau, 2018). As Samantha was exercising reasonable care during her operations at the stairs,
while not under the influence of any external substances or intoxicants which could have
hampered her decision making, with the fall occurring solely due the gross negligence of
Extortionate PLC in relation to the carpet coming away significantly and the nails being exposed
at the bottom of the stairs, the liability of Extortionate PLC towards the fall and injuries
sustained by Samantha is clear, and hence no reasonable defence can be put up by the lawyers of
Extortionate PLC in this case.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the essay, it can effectively be concluded that Extortionate PLC
is liable for the injuries sustained by Samantha while visiting their premises. This essay evaluates
the concepts of Tort and Duty of Care and uses these to evaluate the liability of Extortionate PLC
towards Samantha. The report identifies the ethical requirements of Extortionate PLC and
analyses whether any possible defence can by used in litigation by Extortionate PLC.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Best, A., Barnes, D.W. and Kahn-Fogel, N., 2018. Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and problems.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Deakin, S. and Markesinis, B., 2019. Markesinis and Deakin's tort law. Oxford University Press,
USA.
Goldberg, J.C., Sebok, A.J. and Zipursky, B.C., 2016. Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress.
Aspen Publishers.
Moreau, S.J., 2018. Regulatory Negligence: Recent Update On and Analysis of" The Duty Of
Care". Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice. 31(2). pp.139-175.
Morris, C., Chawla, G. and Francis, T., 2019. Clinical negligence: duty and breach. British
dental journal. 226(9). pp.647-648.
Plunkett, J., 2018. The Duty of Care in Negligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Wright, J., 2017. Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.