We believe that both the employee and the employer were unethical in this case because it illustrates a degree of moral intensity. The employee had a due diligence to the employer and should have brought his concerns to higher management instead of blogging it on a low profile under a false name. The employer had a due diligence to the employee and should have expressed their concern to the employee. The employer could of asked the employee if he could have deleted the blog or edit it so that the name of the employer was not mentioned. The degree of harm that could have happened to the company was not justified because when a search was made in an Internet search and the blog was not easily accessible in the public domain and this does not give the employer the just cause for termination of the employee.
The government may choose to keep it out of the news papers but private companies and individuals have the power to save lives. Which would be the right decision in this case but they lie and kill to protect their incomes. They are greedy and this choice and be considered wrong. Morality is low. Now Acshenbach knows and he has the power to alert others of the immediate danger.
In fact for this incident to have happened Esposito had to of been rather very close to Davis when he turned around. According to the document given to do the assignment on, it tell us that Esposito filed suit on Davis and others for negligence. In the tort of negligence Proximate Cause would be in the favor of Esposito. Proximate cause exists where the plaintiff is injured as the result of negligent conduct, and plaintiff's injury must have been a natural and probable result of the negligent conduct. In order for a defendant to be liable, the plaintiff must establish both negligence and proximate cause.
What should the court decide? Why? > Background check is very important before hiring an employee because it presents the potential liability of employers for the harmful acts of the people they hire. Employers are generally responsible for the actions of their agents so they should avoid negligent hiring. If an employer fails to meet its duty to conduct an adequate background check and hires an unfit employee who uses his or her position to inflict harm on others, that employer may be liable for negligent hiring.
The Third Coast Auto Group, LP may have been unintentional but took careless actions that became their responsibility. Third Coast Auto Group also known as TCAG was negligent in keeping their guard dog restrained while work hours putting his employees, and customers and nay other individual at actual harm. In the tort of negligence there are three possible things that need to be proven in order to succeed. VanHouten has to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, secondly that the defendant breaks that duty of care within the standard of care required by law, and finally breach of duty of care results in damages to the plaintiff. In this case of Kelly Kanton Labaj and Third Coast Auto Group, LP VS Deeann VanHouten the defendants were liable for her injuries because they knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous and vicious propensities.
The most common example of vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for the torts of his employees committed in the course of employment. It is not necessary in such circumstances for the employer to have breached any duty that was owed to the injured party, and therefore it operates as strict or no-fault liability. It is possible that the injured party could be either an employee or a stranger, and the employer can be held vicariously liable in both situations. The most important element to establishing a case for vicarious liability is that the wrongdoer be acting as a servant or employee, and that the wrong done be connected to the employee’s course of employment. Vicarious liability can only be imposed if it is proved that the employee was acting “in the course of employment.” This criteria is essential, and requires a clear connection between the employment duties and the employee’s acts complained of.
And then the Judge may consider this case as unintentional tort caused by the tyre company which will make them strictly liable to pay the damages for the harmed party. • Apply the elements of the tort of negligence and defense’s in different business situations: 1. Duty of Care: it is the responsibility of the employer to impose everyone not to place others at foreseeable risk. Ex: Employer is responsible to provide special facilities if they have colleagues with special needs such as having toilets specialized for them, elevators etc. 2.
The company would also be found liable, as they had not taken steps to protect the safety of an employee. Compensation as well as a fine and notice to improve systems could be incurred. A failure to do so could lead to a prohibition notice
Everyone related to this company is affected by this situation. Investigators and employees didn’t want to get involves because they didn’t want to investigate their own bosses or be involve in conflicts of interest. I think their claims were reasonable but don’t think action should be taken upon them. But to prevent this issue there should be a policy or clause addressing this issue with its consequences so it doesn’t happen again. 3.
James Hardie attempted to avoid paying compensation by delaying and exploiting legal loopholes to avoid liability (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, p263). According to Kantian Ethics, humans should never be used as a means to an end and instead they should be treated with respect due to their inherent worth (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, p75). James Hardie Industries’ decision to continuously use asbestos as raw material for its products has breached moral rights because they were already aware of the hazardous properties asbestos possess (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, p263). Instead of stopping the usage of asbestos when its potential hazards were discovered in 1939, they continued using asbestos for the next 20 years at the expense of the health of employees and consumers (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, p263). This shows a total disregard of human lives and welfare.