Tort of Negligence in Business Law and Ethics: Samantha's Case Essay

This essay examines the legal and ethical implications of the Tort of Negligence within a business context, using a case study involving Samantha and Extortionate PLC. It delves into the concept of duty of care, the responsibilities of businesses to ensure safety, and the consequences of negligence. The essay explores how the bank's failure to maintain a safe environment, specifically the unfixed staircase, led to injuries and potential legal liabilities. It analyzes the ethical considerations, including maintaining integrity and upholding customer rights, and the defenses against negligence claims. The analysis highlights the importance of ethical conduct, risk assessment, and prompt action in addressing potential hazards to avoid legal repercussions and maintain customer trust. The essay references relevant legal concepts and provides a comprehensive overview of the case from both perspectives.

Business law and ethics

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
An essay on the Tort of Negligence.................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
Reference.........................................................................................................................................8

Introduction
Legal maintenance is imperative for every business organization. Business law helps to maintain
all the business issues and controls all the related aspects that are connected with the business.
Business organizations have to keep some ethical and moral responsibilities. But in the case of
Samantha, the bank has failed to assure the safety of the clients. Tort or Tort negligence is not a
crime but it is the lack of sense in terms of ethical and moral responsibilities. If Extortionate PLC
paid attention to the issues that people were facing, then they could have saved the clients from
getting injured. The defendant is responsible for every act of them that has caused concerns to
the public. The sense of ethical and moral responsibility would provide the bank of upholding
integrity. The major defence in contradiction of the negligence is comparative negligence. The
entire essay will narrate and enforce the whole case from both perspectives.

An essay on the Tort of Negligence
An act of creating a situation that may be harmful to an individual's health and property due to
the irresponsibleness of others is considered as Tort or Tort of negligence. The action is
dependable on the negligence made by a group of people or by any individual. However, it is an
act of negligence but not anything that can be considered a crime. Yet, according to the law of
neglect, the person or group of people is mentioned to be punished if they were found guilty. In
several cases, the punishment is given by the consideration of monetary aspects (Best, 2018).
However, the duty of care is considered as the moral responsibility of a person toward other
clients to protect their issues. A person is safe to accomplish any task that does not have any legal
restrictions. But by any chance, if the act is proven to be harmful to other people, then the
respective party will be responsible and guilty. The duty of care is the moment when any issue
has been caused that makes a harmful impact on other's lives.
This essay will concentrate on Samantha's case where the implementation of Tort of negligence
responsibly follows extortionate PLC. The Tort law is apathetic from the contract law that works
on public issues. The act of Extortionate PLC can be taken under the law of Tort because the
negligence of the bank was creating issues for public. However, the concept of Tort law can be
defined by the presence of two groups (Kahn-Fogel, 2018). The first group is responsible for the
activity that has caused trouble for people. The second group is the people who have got affected
by the trouble. The case of Samantha can be dragged under the Tort law but she has to
substantiate that the act of the bank was intentional or a part of negligence. The unfixed staircase
has caused trouble and injuries to many customers.
Hence, this cannot be intentionally done but can be a part of the negligence of the Extortionate
PLC. The bank has noticed the incident or accidents of people due to the unfixed staircase but
did not take any action. There was no warning sign on the entrance or the business hall and
hence the people did not know the imminent danger. The people had fallen and had bad injuring
on different parts of their bodies. The bank was completely aware of it but did not fix it so the
bank can be responsible for the issues that have caused to the clients. Regarding Tort Law, the
defendant's obligation needs to be identified. The defendant is liable for every act of them that

has caused issues to the public. The culprit has to crack its duty of care that the bank has also
made. Extortionate PLC did not fulfil its duty of protecting its clients properly (Hillman, 2018).
Another aspect of Tort Law is the infringements of the personal rights of a person. Following the
rule, Extortionate PLC has the right to keep their staircase in whatever manner they wanted it to
be. But the staircase has caused accidents and people got injured due to the infixed condition.
Extortionate have seen the issue that their clients are facing due to the unfixed staircase but did
not pay any attention on that. Samantha had faced a similar accident and realized that the bank
could have fixed it if they wanted. Similarly, other people have stated the same issues that they
have faced and also stated that the bank could have taken steps to recover it. Therefore, it is clear
that the bank has opted to not to handle that and neglect the issue. Hence according to the law of
Tort, Extortionate is responsible for the accidents that have caused to Samantha and others.
The Tort Law also considers the way people communicate in society. Following the rule, Tort
Law has been considering the communication between Samantha and Extortionate PLC to
understand the aspects properly. In this case, the banks have to maintain some ethical
considerations before introducing their banking procedures (Deakin, 2019). The ethical
consideration is related to the employees, clients and so on. Banks have to consider aspects like
preserving information, protecting customer's and employee's right etc. Therefore, Extortionate
PLC has to keep a balance to protect the related parties. The bank is also reliable to have control
over the uprightness to the clients within the context. Hence the banks have to consider the
ethical considerations to conduct business properly.
Banks are the most trusted sources of people and known for their great loyalty to its customers.
The Extortionate PLC could have told the truth and should have kept the promises. In terms of
ethical consideration, the bank should have told about the issue to the people. This is how the
bank could hold on to its position and also assure uprightness or integrity (Posner, 2011). The
proper loyalty to their customers is essential in the business and assuring their rights is also
important. The bank has to set the integrity and uprightness for their clients. Every organization
tries to maintain their ethical concerns in terms of keeping the safety and loyalty to their
customers. The act of Extortionate PLC have caused accidents and harmed people because they
were failed to inform people about it and maintain their ethical concerns.

Extortionate PLC has to work on developing their safety measures and uprightness to the
customers so that such issues do not take place any more (Nelson, 2013). It can lead to the
opportunity to assure the safety purposes of the people and develop the system more. Therefore,
this process can assure the ethical development of the bank. The case of Tort, the case indicated
to the matter of negligence. To protect the organization will have to work on the defense to
handle the issue. The first defence in the contradiction of negligence is comparative negligence.
Moreover, it is caused due to the culprits and petitioner (Priaulx, 2017). In case of Extortionate
PLC, the petitioner was not negligent, but the bank itself was. Therefore, Extortionate PLC has
no chance to get any defence.
If the neglected or injured group cannot act sensibly, then the contributory negligence act takes
place. Samantha had faced a similar accident and realized that the bank could have fixed it if
they wanted. Similarly, other people have stated the same issues that they have faced and also
stated that the bank could have taken steps to recover it (Blodgett, 2011). Samantha was not
informed about the unfixed staircase, so Extortionate PLC will not be able to get the contributory
negligence. Extortionate got so many chances for assuring the defence toward the obligation of
negligence. But nothing had worked in case of the bank and there is the last chance that it can
adopt. The assumption of risk can be another chance to defend itself. Samantha did not get any
point to express on the aspect of assumption because there was a carpet lying on the staircase.
In this case, the assumption of risk can be a valid point to Extortionate Bank because it was not
clearly visible to both of the parties. In this case, Extortionate PLC could not recognize the issue
and control it immediately (Westermann ‐Behaylo, 2012). If they were aware of it, then they
could sensibly handle the issue and let their customers' know about it. This can be a great point
to be stated for Extortionate on the defense of the obligation that was imposed on them.

Conclusion
A person is safe to accomplishment any task that does not have any legal restrictions. The act of
Extortionate PLC can be taken under the law of Tort because the negligence of the bank was
creating issues for public. The unfixed staircase has caused trouble and injuries to many
customers. The people had fallen and had bad injuring on different parts of their bodies.
Samantha had faced the similar accident and realized that the bank could have fixed it if they
wanted. The ethical consideration is related to the employees, clients and so on. The assumption
of risk can be a valid point to Extortionate Bank because it was not clearly visible to both of the
parties. In this case, Extortionate PLC could not recognize the issue and control it immediately.

Reference
Best, A., Barnes, D. W., and Kahn-Fogel, N. (2018). Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and
problems. Wolters Kluwer Law and Business.
Bishara, N. D., & Westermann ‐Behaylo, M. (2012). The Law and Ethics of Restrictions on an
Employee's Post‐Employment Mobility. American Business Law Journal, 49(1), 1-61.
Blodgett, M. S. (2011). Substantive ethics: Integrating law and ethics in corporate ethics
programs. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 39-48.
Deakin, S., and Markesinis, B. (2019). Markesinis and Deakin's tort law. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Hillman, R. W. (2018). Law Firms and Their Partners: The Law and Ethics of Grabbing and
Leaving. Tex. L. Rev., 67, 1.
Nelson, B. (2013). Law and Ethics in Global Business: How to Integrate Law and Ethics into
Corporate Governance Around the World. Routledge.
Posner, R. A. (2011). The concept of corrective justice in recent theories of tort law. The Journal
of Legal Studies, 10(1), 187-206.
Priaulx, N. (2017). The harm paradox: tort law and the unwanted child in an era of choice.
Routledge.