Business Law And Ethics

Task

The negligence liability has been arises when one party is responsible to take care another party but failed to do so. The tort of negligence is able to create liability for harm to any party. The government is empowered by the legal authorities to framed various types of rules, regulation and policies which are imposed on them as per the law. They have to fulfil their duties and responsibility which are imposed on them (Gruioniu, 2014). But at the time of file claim plaintiff needs to proof some points which are required as per the legal terms.

On the basis of given scenario, Charlene is the Yoga instructor who received certificate in Yoga instruction from the Australian Yoga institute. Her regular job is physical education provided to the people in order to make them physically fit and healthy. She felt that Yoga is the like a physical discipline which is able to involve stretching muscles as well as holing various types of complex and difficult postures. As the time passes becomes the vary good Yoga teachers and large number of people and are uses her services. After sometime she started classes with her own name which is attended by approx 25 students . She conduct classes in two days Tuesday nights and Thursday nights. And around 25 students are attend classes classes in each class (De George, 2011). Each person pay an advance amount to her for the services which are provided by her to people. Charlene instructed to student to wear socks when they comes in the premises.

Skye is the person who late join the Yoga classes so that, she is not aware with the instruction of defendant because plaintiff late join the classes. The hot tea and towel are placed besides the Yoga classes (Big Problems with Laws Regulating Business. 2017). One day, Skye comes in the premises without wearing socks. For the same reason she fells down on the slippery floor and got injured due to negligence of defendant. In that case plaintiff is able to file claim for the damages which are caused due to negligence.

In that case Charlene is responsible to take care of health of their students but she failed to do so then her one student is got injured (Bageac, Furrer and Reynaud, 2011). Parties are bound to follow rules and regulation which are imposed on them.

Case 1

Condon v Basi, 1985, in that case it has been defined that defendant is responsible to take care plaintiff but breach the duty then they are liable to pay compensation amount to another party. In that case defendant conduct very huge amount of carelessness regards plaintiff.

According to tort of negligence, if plaintiff wants to file against defendant then they have to prof some important points in court. As per the given scenario, Skyp needs to proof some points which are related to the damages which are caused to them.

Tort of negligence refer to as the activity through which one person is liable for the harm of another due to avoid some important things which are related to an individual. The person who attempt promote this duty is known as the plaintiff who files the case against to other person and the person whom against the case is filed is known as the defendant. This act is void under any tort of negligence activity. There are four major things which a person have to prove to file a case against defendant:

1.Duty of care
2.Breach of duty of care
3.Damages
4.Damages not able to remote

All these things have to be prove by plaintiff for sue against a person who is responsible for that. The present case is based on the Skye and Charley in which it is found that due to tort of negligence of Charley the whole damage have to bear by the Skye (Vranceanu, 2014). Charley become careless and thus all the harm have to bear by the Skye. This tort of negligence get done because Skye join the classes too late and that's why she is not learn that she have to wear shocks in Yoga class (Fassin and Buelens, 2011). Also Charley not mentioned such things to her that's why this activity took place. Following are some of the statement which Skye have to prove so that she can prove that tort of negligence took place.

Duty of care

The duty of care states that if any kind of activity get done through which a physical and careless act get done due some omission. According to this thing Skye have to prove that Charley do not provide proper care to her and that's why she got burned. Plaintiff have to prove that whole duty of responsibility is related with the defendant and thus she can claim compensation on this concern (Grassl and Habisch, 2011). If Skye going to prove that the defendant owned duty of care then she will need to discuss the breach of duty. All these things are related with each other.

For example; A is the person who suffered from some deceases admitted in the hospital, so that doctors are under an obligation to take care of A. according to law it is the duty of care of doctor.

Case 2

Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932, in this case Donoghue act as an plaintiff who purchased ginger beer and ice cream from the shop. After opening the bottle of beer claimant realized that there is decomposed snail which is emerged from ginger beer bottle and some personal injury caused to her. On the basis of same issue, Donoghue file claim against manufacture in order to receive compensation for the damages.

Breach of duty of care

A duty of care breach came when a defendant become responsible for the act which is done due to negligence. Duty of care get breach at that time when a person failed in taking care of another person (Swanson and Frederick, 2016). So for avoiding such type of things they have to properly conduct all the things in a proper and appropriate manner. In the present scenario Charley is responsible for the tort of negligence against Skye. In this concern if Skye going to prove that Charley is responsible then she will have to bear all the compensation against this.
For example; X is the financial accountant of Adil. X is under an obligation to take care financial account of his client. But he missed some important document of Adil which are not able to recover. It is breach of duty of care according to provisions of law.

Case 3

Vaughan v Menlove, 1837, in that case the defendant has been argued that he used best and possible judgement and not able to foresee the risk which is related to fire. The court has defined that the bets and possible judgement is not enough.

Damages

If plaintiff will not lead to fail in prove that the duty of negligence is along with the defendant then it should get defendant have the right to sue against the plaintiff also. Hence for this the main work of plaintiff is to prove that defendant really negligent the duty of care and breach the duty of care (Norman, 2011). According to the present scenario if there is any kind of tort of negligence found against the Charley then whole damage responsibility is associated with her. Hence she have to bear the compensation amount which she will going to pay to Skye.

Case 4

Bolitho v City & Hackney Health Authority, 1997, as per this case, there is 2 years old child who suffering from breathing problem. The doctor not attend her bleep that which was not working because of low battery but child died. After that file claim against doctor that she intubated the child. But doctor provide evidence that she attend the child but not intubated. On the basis of following evidences, the trial judge declares that there was no breach of duty is conducted.

Injury not remote

Skpe is also able to proof that the injury which is caused to her is not able to remote and must be able to receive compensation for the same. It is the legal term which means the things which caused damages to plaintiff is able to recoverable or subject matter is not available in the market. But at the end, the person who found guilty in the eyes of law have to pay compensation equal to amount mentioned under the law.
For example; A and his wife setting in the car and went some where while travelling B driven with drunk and both cars crashed. After that A's wife died on spot. A having a right to file against B and damages thing is not available in market.

Case 5

Smith v Leech Brain, 1962, widow file claim against defendant that her husband was employed by him. Due to their negligence her husband's lips burn and which contained pre cancerous cells. These things are able to incurred injury to her husband after that he died. So that, plaintiff is able to file against other party and able to receive compensation.

According to all such things it get identify that if Charley informed to Skye that wearing of shocks is compulsory while Yoga then this accident might not get proceed (Nica, 2013). Also it is the major duty of her to inform all important information which are related with the classes to Skye.

Conclusion

From the above mentioned report it has been concluded that there are many laws and acts that may affect the business in many ways. As per the tort of negligence Cherlene is able to fulfil her duty to take care her students who are attend the classes of Yoga. According to this law if plaintiff wants to sue defendant then they must proof some significant points which in court. These laws can protect the relations among all the customers and business owners so that overall operations can be run in more smooth ways. In this, both the parties have to follow their rules and regulations on the basis of the contract that is made in between them. It is the responsibility of local bodies to make these laws so that different people can resolve their issues. In this one party have to take care of another and if they get failed in doing this they are liable to pay compensation to another party.

References

• Bageac, D., Furrer, O. and Reynaud, E., 2011. Management students’ attitudes toward business ethics: A comparison between France and Romania. Journal of Business Ethics.
• De George, R.T., 2011. Business ethics. Pearson Education India.
• Fassin, Y. and Buelens, M., 2011. The hypocrisy-sincerity continuum in corporate communication and decision making: A model of corporate social responsibility and business ethics practices. Management Decision.
• Grassl, W. and Habisch, A., 2011. Ethics and economics: Towards a new humanistic synthesis for business. Journal of Business Ethics.
• Gruioniu, O., 2014. On ethics, economy and capitalism. An Aristotelian approach. Revista de Stiinte Politice.
• Nica, E., 2013. Social Responsibility, Corporate Welfare, and Business Ethics. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management.
• Norman, W., 2011. Business ethics as self-regulation: Why principles that ground regulations should be used to ground beyond-compliance norms as well. Journal of Business Ethics.
• Parmo, D.L., Coddou, A. and Guiloff, M., 2013. Constitutional Law in Chile. Kluwer Law International.
• Swanson, D.L. and Frederick, W.C., 2016. Denial and leadership in business ethics education. Business ethics: New challenges for business schools and corporate leaders.
• Vranceanu, R., 2014. Corporate profit, entrepreneurship theory and business ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review.
• Big Problems with Laws Regulating Business. 2017.

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit