Business Law and Ethics: A Case Study on Tort of Negligence

This document discusses the importance of business law and ethics through a case study on Tort of Negligence. It explores the duty, breach, cause, and harm in establishing a claim for negligence. The case study involves Samantha and Extortionate PLC, where negligence is proven due to repeated incidents of injuries caused by the bank's negligence. The document concludes with the importance of following business ethics and law to protect human rights.

Business Law and Ethics

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
Case Study...................................................................................................................................1
Issue in case study:......................................................................................................................2
Business law and ethics:..............................................................................................................2
Critical discussion of present case...............................................................................................3
Overall discussion:.......................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
Business Law demonstrates the law which applies to organisations, in regulating the
activities and bound them to follow sustainable practices (Blanco, 2020). In the same sense,
ethics is one of important branch of moral philosophy, which guide people regarding with basic
human conduct, by setting guidelines. Both terms mainly concern with definition of rights and
responsibilities of people, with an intent for maintaining social order and peace as well as
protection of all citizens. To under the importance of business law and ethics, a case analysis is
done on Tort of Negligence that states about offences occur due to negligence of duty.
Key terms:
Duty – a legal obligations made to be sued for negligence, where defendant should have owed
duty regarding with Plaintiff.
Breach – a violation of duty or a law where defendant must breach own duty to be liable, for any
negligence
Cause – Breach of duty that causes a harm to plaintiff
Harm – Any physical or mental injury suffered by defendant, where he/she sue for negligence
MAIN BODY
Case Study
Samantha went into the local bank named as Extortionate Plc, to make an inquiry about
the loan that she wants to take for starting a new business (Turton, 2020). But when she went
back from the bank, she has met with an incident. Due to trip with carpet, she has fallen from
stairs and to protect herself, she puts hand in front of her. It let into broken her wrist with many
injuries due to exposure of nails at stairs bottom. On responding towards this injury, Extortionate
Plc states that an exclusion clause, about limit of liability i.e. bank is not liable for any physical
damage or injuries about visitors, who uses it facilities (Stoyanova, 2019). This would have also
mentioned clearly on its premises. But one of the friend of Samantha have told about same type
of cases which has happened before in this bank, previously. Her friend informed that various
customers have made complaint about fallen down from stairs due to carpet. A link of social
media account of this bank was also sent to her, which demonstrates entire information about
claim of various clients.
1

Issue in case study:
The main issue under this case study is to decide who is the main defaulter i.e.
Extortionate Plc due to negligence of clients’ complaint or Samantha who has suffered from
injury because of carelessness (Chinwuba, 2020). For this purpose, focus is also given on clause
that has made by respective bank within its premises, that clearly states people about limited
liabilities. But since similar cases of injuries have been happened in this bank, so question about
its negligence has also been raised. Therefore, to resolve this issue about Samantha who acts as
claimant in present case, should gain any type of compensation from Extortionate Plc or any type
of legal actions need to make on this bank, for reducing occurrence of such injuries in future,
decision is taken for requirement of establishing the claim of Tort of Negligence (Varman and et.
al., 2020). By making a detail discussion on this case including laws and regulations that have
been made earlier, appropriate actions can be taken.
Business law and ethics:
The term Negligence is a form of tort that mainly evolves in a case where some type of
damage is occurred between two parties, who have made no contract (Collymore, 2020).
Therefore, under such no one party is sued over others and to prove any claim for damage and
negligence, claimant must require to put a number of elements in front of court. It includes
claimant owed them the duty of care; breached with same; and suffered damage or loss due to
direct consequence. But even when such negligence if proved, then still defendant might have
defence, which protects them from any kind of liability, or minimise claimed amount of damage
(Vidgen, Hindle and Randolph, 2020). In this sense, for establishing claim for such negligence
under present case study, it is essential to understand the term – Tort of Negligence. According
to Winfield and Jolowicz, Negligence defines as breach of a legal duty for providing care, which
results in major injuries or damages to the plaintiff by defendant (Negligence As A Tort:
Meaning Essentials And Defences, 2020). So, it states that if people may meet with any injuries
then he/she will claim for compensate only after proving the default.
To ensure the claim for negligence, it is essential to prove four main elements that are
Duty, breach, cause and harm, which help claimant to prove case against defendant (Turton,
2020). Here, first term duty states that claimant must prove that defendant has committed for
breach of duty, i.e. he/she has failed to perform standard duty. Similarly, consequent damage to
the Plaintiff, is another main tem which is essential to requisite for tort of negligence. This factor
2

concerns on identifying if damage or any injury is caused to plaintiff was consequently result of
breach of duty or not. While harm suffered by plaintiff can be categorised in terms of physical
harm (damage to body; loss of reputation; harm to property etc.) and mental harm (shock or
stress) due to unethical acts of defendant prove the claim for negligence (Chinwuba, 2020). For
example - a cotton mop has been left inside patient’s body due to carelessness of medical team
or doctor, so they are held liable. Therefore, all these factors can be applied to resolve a case
within legal boundation.
Critical discussion of present case
As per the present case of Samantha and Extortionate PLC, it has been evaluated that
fallen from stairs refers to an incident which could be happened with anybody, inside or outside
the home (Varman and et. al., 2020). But if same situations have been repeatedly occurred on
same place, especially within premises of public or private firms, then it provided evidence of
negligence. In case of Samantha, she has faced a major injury within mentioned bank when she
has visited for personal work. But it was not single case, where only Samantha has fallen from
stairs, in fact a number of persons have suffered huge damages due to the same issue, i.e. carpet
which was placed inappropriately on stairs. So, it proves that bank has breached a duty of care
and is liable for compensation or any further legal obligations (Collymore, 2020)). But it can
defence itself, via the clause that it has mentioned clearly about limited liabilities for any incident
if could happen with client, if they use its facilities. However, a question can be raised on its
ignorance of complaints, where many of its client has claimed on its social website account about
inappropriately placement of carpet on stairs. Therefore, it satisfied all main factors viz. duty of
care; breached with duty of care; and harm, that established the Tort of Negligence on
Extortionate PLC bank, by Samantha.
Overall discussion:
Thus, from all over the discussion, it has been analysed that for claiming any negligence, it
is essential to prove each and every factor which provided evidence against defendant to breach a
duty (Vidgen, Hindle and Randolph, 2020). In this regard, after analysing whole situations which
has clearly evident that mistake has been done from Extortionate PLC due to ignorance of
clients’ complaints on same issue. If it takes appropriate actions before, then it could help this
bank to make a defence against plaintiff. But after proving negligence, it is required that bank
should compensate Samantha for major injuries and should place appropriately the carpet
3

(Blanco, 2020). Along with this, its management also need to ensure that everything in premises
is properly managed, which would further provide a clean and safe premises to its customers.
CONCLUSION
Through the applications of different English laws and legislation, it has been concluded that
it is essential for every person to follow business ethics and law, which may protect them from
any case of breached the duty towards plaintiff. Similarly, having knowledge of such laws like
Tort of Negligence, people can take legal actions against defendant by protecting their human
rights.
4

REFERENCES
Books & Journals
Blanco, E., 2020. Vedanta, a long awaited landmark in extra-territorial tort litigation against
parent companies: Reflections on jurisdiction. Manchester Journal of International
Economic Law. 16(1).
Chinwuba, N. N., 2020. Recent developments in the application of the doctrine of vicarious
liability by United Kingdom courts. Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of
International Law and Jurisprudence. 11(1) pp.137-148.
Collymore, A., 2020. The Perception of the Ethics of Tax Evasion in the United Kingdom.
Stoyanova, V., 2019. Common law tort of negligence as a tool for deconstructing positive
obligations under the European convention on human rights. The International Journal
of Human Rights, pp.1-24.
Turton, G., 2020. CAUSATION AND RISK IN NEGLIGENCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
LAW. The Cambridge Law Journal. 79(1). pp.148-176.
Varman, R. and et. al., 2020. Normative Violence in Domestic Service: A Study of Exploitation,
Status, and Grievability. Journal of Business Ethics, pp.1-21.
Vidgen, R., Hindle, G. and Randolph, I., 2020. Exploring the ethical implications of business
analytics with a business ethics canvas. European Journal of Operational
Research. 281(3). pp.491-501.
Online
Negligence As A Tort: Meaning Essentials And Defences. 2020. [Online]. Available Through: <
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1297/Negligence-As-A-Tort:-Meaning-
Essentials-And-Defences.html>
5