Business Law and Ethics Case Study: Negligence, Vicarious Liability

This case study delves into the area of business law, specifically focusing on the tort of negligence and the principle of vicarious liability. The scenario involves Ruth, an employee of Flowers Inc., whose careless parking leads to a series of events resulting in damage and injury. The analysis establishes the elements of negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and foreseeability. Ruth's actions, parking her car on a steep hill and failing to engage the brake, constitute a breach of her duty of care, leading to an accident that damages property and injures a motorist, Jim. The case explores the concept of vicarious liability, where Flowers Inc. is held responsible for Ruth's actions as they occurred during the course of her employment. The decision confirms Ruth's liability for negligence and establishes that Jim can recover damages from both Ruth and Flowers Inc. The case study provides a detailed examination of the legal principles involved, supported by relevant legal references.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS
Business Law and Ethics
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS
Table of Contents
Area of Law................................................................................................................................2
Principles of Law.......................................................................................................................2
Elements of Negligence.........................................................................................................2
Principle of Vicarious Liability..............................................................................................2
Facts...........................................................................................................................................3
Decision......................................................................................................................................3
References..................................................................................................................................4

2BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS
Area of Law
The given case study revolves around the area of law of torts, which a type of civil
wrong that hold individuals or entities responsible for causing injury to person or damage to
property. The tort of Negligence is major area of law in this case, involving the principle of
Vicarious liability that holds a person of superior position responsible for the wrongful act
committed by his subordinate (Gray, 2019).
Principles of Law
Elements of Negligence
Negligence refers to the carelessness of a person causing injury to another person or
damaging property of another (Oldham, 2018). To constitute the tort of negligence, it has to
be established that:
 There was a duty of care between the claimant and the defendant;
 Such duty has been breached;
 Such breach has cause injury or damage to the claimant; and
 The risk was foreseeable (Oldham, 2018).
Principle of Vicarious Liability
Vicarious liability applies to a person who holds a position where he could be held
responsible for the wrongful act committed by his subordinate, like in the relationship of an
employer and employee (Gray, 2019). Its elements are:
 The tortfeasor is an employee;
 A tort must have been committed, amount to injury or damage; and
 The employee committed the tort in the course of employment.

3BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS
Facts
Ruth, parking her car carelessly, owes a duty of care towards anyone around her, who
might be affected by her wrongful actions. Parking the car on a steep hill, leaving it in neutral
and failing to engage the brake breached the duty of care that she has, as the rolled down the
hill and knocked an electric line off. Such breach of duty subsequently caused the explosion
of one of the gasoline tanks. Had Ruth been careful about parking her car correctly, the
accident would not have happened; ‘but for’ Ruth’s negligence to execute her duty of car in
the road, the gasoline tank was damaged, exploding a part of the structure of the gas station
along with injuring Jim, a passing motorist (Deakin & Markesinis, 2019).
Ruth is Flowers Inc’s employee, who breached her duty of care in the course of
employment. As the wrongful act was committed by Ruth in the course of employment, the
principle of Vicarious Liability shall be applicable to the case.
Decision
The presence of the elements of negligence are confirmed by Ruth’s wrongful action
where she breached her duty of care towards fellow motorists and pedestrians by incorrectly
parking her car. Her breach of duty caused injury to Jim, a passing motorist. It could be
justified that the risk involved in incorrect parking is clearly foreseeable, therefore making
Jim eligible to recover damages from Ruth (Deakin & Markesinis, 2019).
In addition, Jim shall also be eligible to recover damages from Flowers Inc by way of
the doctrine of Vicarious Liability, which holds the employer (Flowers Inc) responsible for
the tort committed by their employee (Ruth) (Gray, 2019).

4BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS
References
Deakin, S., & Markesinis, B. (2019). Markesinis and Deakin's tort law. Oxford University
Press, USA.
Gray, A. (2019). A critique of the enterprise risk theory of vicarious liability. Canadian
Business Law Journal, 62(2), 181-210.
Oldham, J. (2018). The Law of Negligence as Reported in The Times, 1785–1820. Law and
History Review, 36(2), 383-419.