Duty of Care and Tort Laws

Module - Business Law and
Ethics

Table of Contents
TASK 1.................................................................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY........................................................................................................................................3
Duty of Care and Tort Laws..............................................................................................................3
Liability of Extortionate PLC towards Samantha’s Injury.................................................................4
Ethical Considerations for the Bank..................................................................................................5
Defence for Extortionate PLC...........................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................6
Task 2....................................................................................................................................................6
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................6
Legal profession in United Kingdom.................................................................................................6
CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................10
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................11

TASK 1
INTRODUCTION
Injuries and accidents can happen to any person and these often have significant
consequences for the person who faced the accident and their families. There are several
legally mandated laws and regulations that protect citizens from accidental injuries at
business organisations.
MAIN BODY
Duty of Care and Tort Laws
Tort law is a common civil law that overlooks legal cases where an omission or act of
a party results in harm or injury to an individual and assesses the level of civil wrong in the
case for which legislative courts can impose correct liability that is dependent on the
criticality of the injuries and the amount of civil wrong done by the party. Tort is an invasion
of any legal right of a human. The primary aim of Tort law is to provide relevant and
appropriate relief to the injured parties who have faced accidents or injuries on account of
civil wrong done by others. The tort law imposes liabilities on the party because of whom the
accident or injury occurred with then intentionto provide justice and deter others from
making the same mistakes through which harm can occur to others (Wright, 2017). Tort law
shifts the burden of injury or loss from the injured party to the organisation or party because
of which the injury or accident occurred. Generally, the injured party demands monetary
compensations but can also be compensated using other methods such as restitutions and
injunctions.
Duty of Care is an ethical, fiduciary and legal requirement of company or business
directors that mandates encourages and mandates them to enforce and provide a certain
standard or level of care to others in their organisation. Generally, Duty of Care is considered
to be an implicit ethical responsibility of a business director, though it can also be
strengthened in the business organisation in the form of written contracts. Duty of Care
requires a business to make operational decisions that are ethical, legal in nature after
assessing the given situation and relevant information thoroughly so as to not let negligence
impact their decision making(Spamann, 2016). Failure of a business organisation to provide
standard duty of care to others within the business organisation can have negative legal and

financial consequences for the business and its leaders and directors, as the business
organisation and parties involved can be made to answer for their negligence related to Duty
of Care in legislative courts.
Liability of Extortionate PLC towards Samantha’s Injury
The Extortionate PLC can be held as liable for the unfortunate injuries sustained by
Samantha during her trip to the bank as the injuries that occurred to Samantha happened due
to the gross negligence of Extortionate PLC in providing effective and standard Duty of Care
to others within the bankingorganisation. As the injuries sustained by Samantha occurred due
to Extortionate PLC’s failure in being able to provide others with standard Duty of Care,
according to the Duty of Care and Tort laws, they can be held liable in litigations as if not for
their gross negligence, Samantha would have never sustained the unfortunate injuries in the
first place.
This negligence of Extortionate PLC is highlighted in the case study from the
evidence that the carpet on the stairs at Extortionate PLC had been coming away significantly
at the sides. This proves the negligence of Extortionate PLC and proves that the injuries
sustained by Samantha were not her personal fault as the carpet had been coming away
significantly which would not have been the case had the management of Extortionate PLC
paid dues to their Duty of Care and rectified their mistake, which is their negligence
(Tsinovoi and Adler-Nissen, 2018). After her fall due the significant coming away of the
carpets at Extortionate PLC’s stairs, Samantha tried to protect herself from the fall with her
hands out in front of her. This is a standard reflex of humans to protect themselves from
major injuries, but due to this Samantha ended up breaking her hand and sustaining
evengreater injuries from some nails at the bottom of the stairs at Extortionate PLC that were
exposed. This is another act of gross negligence by the leaders and managers of Extortionate
PLC against their legally mandated Tort and Duty of Care laws, as having exposed rusty nails
that other humans can accidentally scratch, slip on and injure themselves goes against all
standards that are prescribed by them in the Duty of Care to be followed with the intention to
provide adequate care to others within the banking organisation.
The liability of Extortionate PLC in this case is apparent to all, as the fall of Samantha
occurred due to the negligence of Extortionate PLC’s managers and leaders in providing
effective standardised Duty of Care to their employees and customers as is evidenced by the
significant coming away of the carpets at their stairs. This gross negligence of Extortionate