Legal Analysis of Tort Law, Ethical Considerations, and Bank Liability

This essay delves into the intricacies of tort law, defining it as an act or omission causing harm or injury, and exploring the concept of duty of care as a legal responsibility to avoid actions that could harm others. It examines the doctrine of tort, including intentional torts, strict liability, and negligence, and applies these concepts to a case study involving a bank and a customer named Samantha. The essay analyzes whether the bank is liable for Samantha's injury, considering the presence of an exclusion clause. Furthermore, it discusses the ethical considerations a bank owes to the public, such as transparency and responsibility, and explores potential defenses the bank could employ. The conclusion summarizes the key takeaways, emphasizing the importance of business laws, ethical conduct, and the application of tort principles in real-world scenarios. The essay underscores the significance of the exclusion clause as a protective measure for the bank and highlights the importance of maintaining safe environments to minimize the risk of personal injury.

Individual essay
1

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY ..................................................................................................................................3
What is tort and duty of care?......................................................................................................3
In doctrine of tort whether extortionate PLC is liable for samantha’s injury?............................4
What are ethical consideration does bank owe to public?...........................................................4
Are there any possible defence for extortionate PLC?................................................................5
CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Every business is required to follow certain rules and regulations to conduct activity. Also, it is
necessary to govern and monitor business act and behavior to ensure that ethics are followed.
The business laws are developed by government. The regulating bodies are responsible for its
governing. The laws are different in various countries. (Geistfeld, 2019).
The essay will explain about what is tort and duty of care. Besides that, it will be discussed on
doctrine of tort and how it is applied in Samantha case. Furthermore, ethical considerations of
bank towards public will be mentioned. And possible defence which can be used by bank
MAIN BODY
What is tort and duty of care?
The tort is defined as act or omission which results in harm or injury to another person
and civil wrong on which court impose liability. In this all act are contained either intentionally
or unintentionally along with all case where damage or injury is been done (Keating, 2019). The
victim can cover damage in tort law by taking help of law suit. However, it is essential to prove
that there is breach of contract occurred in tort. But it is analysed that criminal and tort are
different from one another. This is because in tort injury done is in interest of person whereas in
criminal law the damage is in interest of society. So, this separate them both.
Now, duty of care is related to legal responsibility owned by company or person to avoid any
behavior or act that can led to damage or harm to others. The behavior and act done must be in
favor of public. The services offered needs to be as per policy and guidelines. Along with it,
behavior should be appropriate. Moreover, there are certain elements of it that is as (Murphy,
2019).
duty- in this relationship depends between defender and plaintiff
breach of duty- here, lawyer needs to proof that party has breached their duty.
Cause in fact- the plaintiff's has to proof that action of defender were cause of injury
2.
Doctrine of tort is explained as restatement using community in order to transform way of
taking decision. In this extra norm can be imposed for liability or damage. In this there are 3
type of tort liability which integrate to define the degree of indeterminacy. It is as
3

Intentional tort- in this an individual do harm or damage to other intentionally. There is a reason
behind it. But it is different from crime in terms of individual interest. An example taken is to
fight with someone. (Sharkey, 2019).
Strict liability- it is a type of tort in which injury is imposed without any proof of negligence on
that responsible person who is wrong doer. However, other things consider here is action
occurred and outcome.of damage done. An example is defective product
Negligence- here, there are certain code of conduct is to be followed. Besides that, public has to
act in certain way so that risk of harm or damage is reduced to others. For instance, car accident.
(Taylor and Elphick, 2019).
From case study, it is evaluated that PLC bank is not liable to pay any damage to Samantha for
her injury. This is because they are having a exclusion clause in which it is written that it limits
liability of any personal damage done. Similarly, Samantha should be aware of this clause.
Through it, she would have get knowledge on for what bank is liable and why. In addition, bank
is not liable to pay to others as well who have suffered from it. But it is important for them to
make people aware about this clause. It will be useful in preventing injuries. Furthermore, carpet
and staris must be maintained so that risk of personal damage is reduced. There needs to be
change in policy and guidelines as well. Thus, in negligence tort customer should use service in
effective way. So, in this case bank is liable for injury of samantha. But it is to be specify what
type of duty is broken. With this it can be identified liability of bank towards samantha
(Trakman, Walters and Zeller, 2019). So, in certain case bank is liable and in some case they
are not.
3.
There are several ethics which has to be followed by organisation and business. This is
because it allows them to maintain their act and behavior as per guidelines and rules. Likewise,
for PLC bank they owe certain consideration towards public. It is defined as below
They should not refrain from behavior or act that many customers have been damaged or injured
during availing facilities within bank. Along with it, they must act in right manner in case of
severe damage done to customer. It means that bank needs to owe their responsibility towards
public. They must make customer aware about exclusion clause so that in case of personal
damage bank is not liable for it and thus it can not be sued. Therefore, it will help in generating
awareness about it and bank can take some action or measure against any injury done. Moreover,

bank need to maintain carpet and ensure that risk of personal injury is reduced. Hence, next time
if similar case occur than proper action can be taken by bank within interest of public. (Turton
and Kyd, 2019).
Apart from it, bank is accountable for any other injury done to public. They must take
responsibility of it and necessary measures as well. Besides, PLC bank needs to maintain
transparency in dealing with tort or any type of negligence. In this they can review cliaim of all
other people who have share it on social media. It will be useful in maintaining transparency in
within business and on social media. So, with these ethical considerations it will be useful for
bank to gain trust of people and act or show behavior in such a way that it is legal and
appropriate. (Gupta, 2019).
4
It is important for bank to protect themselves against case done by Samantha. For this
they require some proof or clause. Therefore, it is identified that PLC bank had made an
exclusion clause of liability in which it is clearly stated that bank is not responsible for any
personal injury or damage done to public who visit bank. So, it can be used as defence. With
help of clause it prevents any business to be sued against it. Thus, clause will prevent bank to get
sued by Samantha. This will help in preventing it to get sue in eyes of law suit. However, even if
Samantha says that she is not aware about this clause or bank did not notified her. Thus, bank is
liable to pay for it. So, these all will not work against exclusive clause as it prevents organization
to get sue from any personal damage or injury done to personal. Apart from it, in terms of tort of
negligence this clause can be useful in it. This is because here there is no proper code of conduct
is followed by organisation. Due to it, damage has occurred. So, the bank is liable for it and in
this case exclusion clause can not be applied. (Murphy, 2019).
CONCLUSION
Hereby, it is concluded that business law are guidelines and policies to conduct act or
behavior in appropriate way. The tort is considered as act that leads to harm. Duty of care is legal
responsibility of business to avoid any act that results in damage. Moreover, in doctrine of tort it
is is 3 type that is intentional, negligence and strict liability. The PLC bank is having some
ethical considerations of behavior and acting. They must make aware public about it exclusion
clause. Besides that, this clause can be used as defence by bank as it will protect them to get sued
by Samantha.
5

7