University of Suffolk Business Law Report: Tort, Ethics, and Defenses

This report analyzes key aspects of business law, including torts, duty of care, and ethical considerations within the context of a hypothetical case involving a PLC bank and a customer named Samantha. The report defines tort law and duty of care, exploring the elements of negligence and the doctrine of tort. It examines whether the PLC bank is liable for Samantha's injury, considering the bank's responsibilities and potential breaches of duty. Furthermore, the report delves into the ethical considerations that the bank owes to the public, such as accountability and transparency, and assesses the bank's potential defenses, specifically the use of an exclusion clause. The report concludes by summarizing the key findings and emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal and ethical standards in business operations. References to relevant books and journals are also included to support the analysis. The report is intended for students of business law to understand real-world applications of the concepts covered in the coursework.

Project
1

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
What is tort and duty of care?......................................................................................................3
Doctrine of tort state whether extortionate PLC is liable for samantha’s injury?.......................3
What are ethical consideration does bank owe to public?...........................................................3
Are there any possible defence for extortionate PLC?................................................................4
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5
2

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
What is tort and duty of care?
Tort law is an act or omission that led to harm or personal injury to other and amount to
civil wrong on which court impose liability. 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 law consider act of person on depends on relationship between defender and
plaintiff.
Breach of duty- in this there has to be a breach of duty. Here, lawyer need to prove that
negligent party has brecahed their duty to another person.
Cause in fact- it state that a plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions were the actual cause
of the plaintiff's injury (Davis and Geyfman, 2017).
3

Doctrine of tort state 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
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 which a person has to follow. Also, there is a
legal duty of public to act in certain way 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 of negligence or fault. 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).
4

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 ot 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).
Are there any 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.
5

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
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.
6

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Alder, J. and Wilkinson, D., 2016. Environmental law and ethics. Macmillan International
Higher Education.
Bayern, S., Burri, T. and Williams, R., 2017. Company law and autonomous systems: a
blueprint for lawyers, entrepreneurs, and regulators. Hastings Sci. & Tech. LJ, 9, p.135.
Davis, L.M. and Geyfman, V., 2017. The Business of Title IX-Using the Law to Improve Gender
Equity in Undergraduate Colleges of Business. JL & Educ., 46, p.163.
Gaitán, S., Herrera-Echeverri, H. and Pablo, E., 2018. How corporate governance affects
productivity in civil-law business environments: Evidence from Latin America. Global
Finance Journal, 37, pp.173-185.
Morley, J., 2016. The Common Law Corporation: The Power of the Trust in Anglo-American
Business History. Colum. L. Rev., 116, p.2145.
Ramirez, S.A., 2018. Diversity and ethics: Toward an objective business compliance
function. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 49(3).
Vilčeková, L., Mucha, B. and Strážovská, Ľ., 2020. Selected Issues of Family Business in
Selected Countries with Emphasis on the Slovak Republic. Innovation management and
education excellence through Vision, 4, p.6.
.
7