Extortionate Plc's Liability: A Tort Law Analysis on Duty of Care

This essay provides an analysis of tort law, specifically focusing on the concept of duty of care and its implications for liability. It examines a hypothetical case involving Samantha and Extortionate Plc, where Samantha sustains injuries at the bank due to negligence. The essay delves into the ethical considerations surrounding Extortionate Plc's actions, particularly their use of an exclusion clause to limit liability. It also explores potential defenses available to the company while concluding that Extortionate Plc is liable for Samantha’s injuries due to the breach of their duty of care. The essay references relevant legal literature and journals to support its arguments.

Individual Essay

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
Tort and Duty of Care..................................................................................................................3
Liability of Extortionate Plc for injury of Samantha...................................................................4
Ethical Consideration bank owe the public.................................................................................5
Possible Defence for Extortionate Plc.........................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION
Tort can be defined as legal wrong in which party suffers at the hand of other. Tort law
provide regulations and jurisdiction framework under which legal liabilities are determined for
the person who cause suffering to claimant. This study will discuss about tort and the duty of
care for the defendant. Tort involves any act which has been done by defendant which is
intentional emotional distress, negligence, financial loss, injury, invasion of privacy etc. This is
different from criminal law as criminal law provides remedies and actions for criminal activities
and wrong and tort provides measures for civil wrong.
Tort and Duty of Care
Tort in law is known as civil wrong because of which claimant suffers loss or harm, this
law creates legal liability for the person who cause harm and loss to claimant. The person is
known to be defendant. The laws which are covered in tort law are all wrongs which are of civil
nature. Some of the wrongs which are covered in this are emotional distress which is inflicted
intentionally by defendant in claimant (Wright, 2017). Negligence which means failure of
individual to take proper cares regarding something because of which claimant suffers loss or
harm. Financial losses, which means causing economic and financial harm to individual, injuries
means physical injuries and invasion of privacy that means defendant harm and affect privacy of
claimant, all these are also part of civil wrong. Tort law is also in contrast with contract law this
also provides remedy for breach of duty but difference in this is that contractual obligation is one
chosen by the one party of the contract but in tort law is imposed by the law. Similarity in tort
law and contract law is that in both case claimant is required to show that they have suffered
because of defendant either because of direct result or because of breach of duty in contract. Tort
law involves that cause of legal actions in civil torts may not be because of criminal action, the
harm that claimant suffers can be because of negligence as well, which cannot be criminal
negligence. This means that it is not necessary that claimant in tort law suffers because of
intentions of defendant. The claimant can cover their losses as damages in lawsuits.
Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual and party in which
individual and party requires adherence to standard of reasonable care while performing any act
which can forseeably harm others (Best, Barnes and Kahn-Fogel, 2018). To precede with an

action in negligence this is first element which is established. This requires that claimant must
show duty of care which is imposed on defendant by law and which has been established.
Breaching a duty can also become subject for liability to individual who breach the duty of care.
Duty of care is also a formalisation of the social contract, this is an implicit responsibility which
is held by individuals towards others within society. Duty of care is not legal requirement that
duty of care will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law.
Liability of Extortionate Plc for injury of Samantha
The case states that Samantha went to her local bank Extortionate Plc and while leaving
the bank she fell from stares and as a result she broke her wrist and injured her hand and also
exposed nails at the bottom of stairs. Extortionate Plc has an exclusion clause which limits any
liability against personal injuries and damages to all customers who use their facility and this
was displayed in their business hall. Samantha did not took any action initially considering that
she was the only one to fell from the stairs (Kysar, 2018). Later she got to know that she is not
the only one this issues has raised with Extortionate Plc before and in social media accounts of
the bank there were lots of clients claiming similar injuries.
In this Extortionate Plc has liability to Samantha because even though they had an
exclusion clause but because such issues which happened with Samantha has happened with
others too and that before Samantha. This means that Extortionate Plc should have followed their
duty of care which is also a part of social contract. This is the responsibility of Extortionate Plc
that they should have taken care of the issue because of which such accidents were happening.
Though this incidence cannot be considered because they had exclusion clause which states that
were aware that something can happen like this but because after accidents happen and they did
not took any measure to stop such happenings. This is why they are liable for the injuries which
happened to Samantha.
This is because duty of care requires individual to adhere to standard of reasonable care
which could possibly harm others. In case of Extortionate Plc and Samantha because the
incidence which happened with Samantha was not only possible but such incidence has
happened and this increased liability of Extortionate Plc and they should have followed their
duty of care (de la Torre, 2019). Extortionate Plc did not adhered to their duty of care and this
states and validate that they are liable for Samantha’s injury.

Ethical Consideration bank owe the public
Ethical considerations are those which are based on general principles and values of right
and wrong. In context with Extortionate Plc their activities and behaviour to the public was
completely unethical because they did not take care of their duties and also did not removed the
reason because of which people were getting injured. This is the duty of Extortionate Plc that
they consider their fault and take accounts for their mistakes which caused injuries to so many
people.
It is the responsibility of Extortionate Plc that they took proper measure to ensure safety
and security of those who come to visit their bank and this is also unethical that they get free
from all their duties by taking assistance of exclusion clause (Sotiriadou and Wicker, 2020). This
might be according to law that they are free from their duties and responsibilities but this is not
ethical.
Their ethical duty makes them responsible for the public in general and specially those
who visit Extortionate Plc and for those who has got injured because of careless and unethical
behaviour of Extortionate Plc. Samantha could have saved her from the injuries she had if
Extortionate Plc would have informed her that there are possibilities that she might fall from
stairs in such case she would have taken extra care but there was no measure that Extortionate
Plc took to ensure safety of Extortionate Plc. This becomes more irresponsible and unethical
when Samantha is not the only person to meet with such an accident.
This make Extortionate Plc’s behaviour more unethical because they did not took any
measure for the safety of the public initially but kept it avoiding even after so many cases of such
incidences.
Possible Defence for Extortionate Plc
Behaviour of Extortionate Plc was not ethical and because they did not fulfil their duty of
care this also make them subject for legal action (Spamann, 2016). But the exclusion clause in
their business hall limits their liability against personal injuries and damage to all customers
using their facility. this clause states and means that while using facility of Extortionate Plc if
any customers gets any type personal injury in that case Extortionate Plc will not be responsible
for the damage. This is only possible defence for Extortionate Plc as they are not responsible for

the damage to customers. In case of Samantha they can present this clause that they stated this to
Samantha earlier that they are not responsible for any injury to her.
They can also defend them by saying that it was Samantha who was actual responsible
for this because falling from stairs was not really an mistake of Extortionate Plc. This is because
this is very natural and this is also possible that Samantha fell from stairs. In case if Samantha
would have been only individual with whom such incidence has happened it was also possible
that this could have considered a natural accidental incidence. This became responsibility of
Extortionate Plc because there were many incidences like this and several people got injured in
such way at Extortionate Plc (Plunkett, 2018). This suggests that Extortionate Plc did not follow
their duty for care and this became reason that many people got injured at Extortionate Plc.
So, these two are the points that Extortionate Plc can use for its defence that their
exclusion clause and they can make Samantha liable for her accident.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of above analysis it can be concluded that wrongs which are of civil nature
that means that wrong activity was not done with any criminal intention is known as Tort Law.
This law includes several elements which are required to be followed by the defendant such as
duty of care which is also a part of social contract rather than individual responsibility to take
adequate measures for safety of people and claimant.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Best, A., Barnes, D.W. and Kahn-Fogel, N., 2018. Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and problems.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
de la Torre, J., 2019. Duty of Care and Risk Management for Institutions of Higher Education.
Kysar, D.A., 2018. The public life of private law: Tort law as a risk regulation mechanism.
European Journal of Risk Regulation. 9(1). pp.48-65.
Plunkett, J., 2018. The Duty of Care in Negligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Sotiriadou, P. and Wicker, P., 2020. ATHLETE PROTECTION AND DUTY OF CARE.
Developing Sport for Women and Girls.
Spamann, H., 2016. Monetary Liability for Breach of the Duty of Care?. Journal of Legal
Analysis. 8(2), pp.337-373.
Wright, J., 2017. Tort law and human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.