Businessesare usually keen on making profits while embracing professionalismduring their operations. However, they are liable to lawsuits,especially when their actions cause damage to their clients. Itexplains why there are numerous cases involving contract and tortclaims. According to the law, its primary objective is to awarddamages to the plaintiff who was able to prove that the defendant wasresponsible for the losses or injuries incurred (Mayer, Warner,Siedel, and Lieberman, 2016). A common prevalent type of tort law isthe negligent tort, which forms the basis of this paper.
Itwas wrong for Mark to be using his phone as he entered the bank. Allhis attention was directed on the phone instead of focusing on wherehe was headed. However, it was also wrong for the janitor to applytoo much wax while buffing the floor thereby making it extraslippery. Additionally, the manager was also negligent as he failedto perform his duty of monitoring the janitor, hence leading to theexcessive use of the wax. With this in mind, it is, therefore,necessary for the bank to be held solely responsible for thecarelessness depicted by the janitor. He must have been keen enoughwhile carrying out his duties, as such he could not have used toomuch of the wax. Additionally, he wasn’t sure about the amounts tobe utilized, and he could have sought for advice from his supervisor.On the contrary, the laziness of his manager is also to blame for theevents that occurred since he was aware that the janitor could notconduct his duties without close supervision.
Thebank would defend itself by declaring the act was as a result of anintentional tort. The bank will indicate that the janitor anticipatedapplying excess wax disregarding the knowledge that only a smallamount would be sufficient. The bank would consider his acts to beintentional and aimed at damaging its reputation a concept commonlyreferred to as wrongful interference (Meiners, Ringleb, and Edwards,2014). The main reason being that either he was dissatisfied withhis work or he did not like the idea of being supervised and also hemight have had a bad working relationship with his supervisor.
Thejudge in the case was aware that Mark was suing the bank for acertain amount of money. His injuries were estimated to be over tenthousand dollars. Even though Mark was using his phone, it wasprudent for the janitor to use a less amount of wax while buffing thefloor. The failure of the manager to also efficiently perform hismonitoring role is to blame for the occurrences. There iscarelessness on the part of the janitor, as there is proof he failedto observe the standard care that would normally be expected of areasonable employee. Additionally, the bank is frequented bycustomers on a daily basis and every hour of the day. Hence, thejanitor could have been more informed on the amount of wax needed forthe floor, thereby failing to observe the duty of care as recognizedunder the tort law.
Titlinga negligence claim necessitates that one has to prove that thedefendant acted in a particular manner towards the plaintiff. It mustbe determined that the defendant acted in an unreasonable mannerwhich led to actual damages being incurred by the plaintiff. Theresponsibility for the carelessness of the janitor is held by thebank as the institution employs him. This is well stipulated underthe doctrine of repondeat superior which notes that the employer isresponsible for all the actions of the employee while at work(Abraham and White, 2016). Mark was injured in the bank due to thecarelessness of the janitor hence he has a better chance of beingcompensated for the injuries he sustained. The janitor is consideredto be the agent whereas the bank is the principal.
Inthe doctrine, the behavior of the agent is under the control of theprincipal hence the bank must take full responsibility for theactions of the janitor (Rhee, 2013). The argument of the bank couldbe based on the fact that Mark’s injury was sustained due to lackof concentration as focused on using his phones. He would have beenin a position to realize the floor the extraordinarily shiny andslippery for that matter. A concept that is known as contributorynegligence however, it is not recognized by the court. For Mark, hecould then use the concept of comparative negligence to argue hiscase and seek compensation. First, he could ensure that all thedamages are summed up, after which his negligence in aiding hisinjury would be subtracted from the costs.
Insummary, it is important for employers to be fully mindful of thefact that, in most instance, liability in a tort is likely to becreated by their employees. Employers must, therefore, ensure thattheir workers perform their duties effectively without causing anyform of injury to their clients which would result in the businessbeing sued.
Abraham,K. S., & White, G. E. (2016). The Transformation of the CivilTrial and the Emergence of American Tort Law.
Mayer,D., Warner, D., Siedel, G., & Lieberman, J. K. (2016). BusinessLaw and the Legal Environment.
Meiners,R. E., Ringleb, A. H., & Edwards, F. L. (2014). Thelegal environment of business.Cengage Learning.
Rhee,R. J. (2013). The Tort Foundation of Duty of Care and BusinessJudgment.