Business Law and Ethics: Tort Law, Duty of Care, PLC Bank Analysis

This essay provides an in-depth analysis of business law, specifically focusing on tort law and the concept of duty of care. It begins by defining tort law and its distinctions from criminal law, followed by an explanation of the duty of care and its key elements. The essay then applies these principles to a case study involving PLC Bank, assessing the bank's liability for a customer's injury under the doctrine of tort. It examines intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability, concluding that the bank is liable due to negligence. The essay also explores the ethical considerations PLC Bank owes to the public, including accountability and transparency, and evaluates potential defenses for the bank, such as an exclusion clause. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of businesses adhering to legal and ethical standards, particularly in relation to tort law and duty of care, and the potential use of exclusion clauses in defense against liability.

Project
1

INTRODUCTION
Business law state to all rules and regulation which are to be followed businesses and
organisation. The government is responsible for governing, regulating of all laws and regulation.
This provide direction to them how to conduct business in legal and ethical way. However, in
every country the laws differ and is formed by government. Besides that, it is necessary to
regulate and maintain law to ensure transparency, accountability, etc. (Morley, 2016).
In essay it will be described about tort law and duty of care. Moreover, it will be
explained on doctrine of tort along with ethical consideration of PLC bank. Also, the possible
defence for extortionate PLC.
MAIN BODY
1.
Tort law is an act or omission that led to harm or personal injury to other and to doing
wrong on which liability can be imposed by court. Basically, it includes all act which is either
done intentionally or intentionally. The tort include all cases which that results in harm. With
help of law suit, victim can cover damage done in tort law. For that, the person must prove
breach of duty which resulted in causing of harm. But it has been evaluated that tort law is
different from criminal law. It is because in tort law damage done is within interest of person.
But on other hand, in criminal law damage or injury done is against society interest. (Alder and
Wilkinson, 2016)
A duty of care is legal responsibility own by a person or company in order to avoid any
behaviour or omission which can result in causing harm to others. So, in law duty of care is
responsibility followed by organisation or person. They have to ensure that all services does not
led to change any damage or harm done to person. There are some elements is duty of negligence
which is as follows
Duty- it arise when act of person is dependent on relationship between defender and plaintiff.
Breach of duty- Here, it is essential to prove that other party has breached their duty.
Cause in fact- it state that a plaintiff must prove that defendant's actions were the actual cause of
injury (Davis and Geyfman, 2017).
Whether extortionate PLC is liable for samantha’s injury?
The doctrine of tort is summarised as restatement using community to transform decision
making. It can import extra norm to identify liability for injury. This means that one doctrinal
3

element needs to be present in 3 kinds of tort liability which incorporate degree of
indeterminacy. They are as follows :
Intentional tort- it is a type of tort in which an individual conduct or cause harm or injury to
another. Generally, it is defined as crime but it differ in terms of individual well being. For
example- fighting with someone.
Negligence- it contain a specific code of conduct to be followed. Also, there is a legal duty of
public to act properly so that risk of harm to other is reduced. For instance- accident
Strict liability- the tort are those in which responsibility for injury is imposed on wrong doer
without any proof. But what is considered here is action occurred and result of injury done to
person. For example- defective products. (Vilčeková, Mucha and Strážovská, 2020).
Yes , it is analysed that under doctrine of tort bank is liable for Samantha to pay for her
injury. This is because it is a tort of negligence in which bank has to follow specific code of
conduct so that risk of injury is low. Hence, bank need to ensure people safety with proper
guidelines and policies. This means the carpet must be maintained so that it reduces possibility of
injury. Moreover, not only Samantha but many other people also fell due to this. Thus, bank is
liable to pay for her injury. However, in tort of negligence it is analysed that customer of bank
need to properly use service or facilities of it. So, as per tort doctrine it is eligible for bank to pay
for Samantha damage. In negligence tort it has to be determined that what type of duty of care is
broken. This will be useful in finding out whether PLC Bank is liable for Samantha injury and
why. Also, what law is applied in it.
What are ethical consideration does bank owe to public?
It is necessary for business to follow certain ethics so that they are able to work properly.
Alongside, with ethics it becomes easy to gain trust of people. They prevent business to engage
in any illegal activity. Likewise, in case of PLC bank as well there are some consideration which
they owe to public. They are described as (Gaitán, Herrera-Echeverri and Pablo, 2018).
Accountability- it state that bank needs to be accountable in case of any fraud. They must take
responsibility of it. This should be responsible for any act of behavior conducted by them.
Transparency- this is a consideration which force bank to maintain transparency with public in
their financial transactions. Apart from it, transparency must be with stakeholders of bank and in
regard to policies and laws developed.

However, in current case it is identified that PLC bank owe some ethics to public. They
should not refrain from act that many customers have caused damage from carpet. In addition,
they must not deny their mistake and also of not making customer aware about the exclusion
clause. Thus, it is stated that many customers are affected due to behavior of bank towards them
and not taking action to improve the carpet and maintenance of stairs. So, it is necessary for PLC
bank to make aware public regarding clause which has been made by them. It will enable in
reflecting behavior of bank towards public. This will show that bank is not responsible for any
injury or damage done. Besides that, bank needs to act in proper way that to what extent they are
not liable for injury or damage done. It means amount or certain criteria. There needs to be
issued some guidelines on it within exclusion clause. Moreover, what type of injury is to be
excluded from clause. So, these are some ethical considerations owned to public. (Bayern, Burri
and Williams, 2017).
4. Possible defence for extortionate PLC?
By analysing the case it is determined that there is possible defence which bank can use
against Samantha. Thus, From the case study it is evaluated that the bank is already having an
exclusion clause of liability. In that it is stated it limits any liability against personal injury or
damage done to customer or people who visiy bank and in using any facilities or service. Thus,
this clause is clearly displayed in business hall. Therefore, exclusion clause state that no
company or organization can be sued against it. Besides that, clause protect company from any
liability or damage done in certain type of breach of contract. Hence, even if Samantha thinks to
sue PLC bank for her injury then in defence bank can use this exclusion clause. (Ramirez, 2018).
So, it will be highly useful for bank to defend themselves in eyes of lawsuit. They will protect it
to get sue. Along with it, in future as well no customer of bank can sue it due to personal injury
or damage occurred to them. Also, in order to create awareness among customer bank can
display clause at various places. This will help in making things easy. Even in tort of negligence
the exclusion clause protect to get sued.
CONCLUSION
It can be summarised that business needs to follow certain laws and conduct operations in
defined manner. The tort law is act or omission which cause personal harm or injury. Whereas
duty of care is legal responsibility of person or organisation to avoid any omission that led to
harm or injury. There are three elements in doctrine of tort they are intentional, negligence and
5

strict liability. Also, there are several ethics which need to be followed by bank such as
accountability, transparency, and many others. Moreover, PLC bank can use exclusion clause in
defence. It will protect them to get sued by people or customer.

.
7