YOU ARE THE JUDGE
YouAre the Judge
CourseName Course Number
Thispaper presents the verdict for Case Example B. The case involves XYZCompany who has been filed a complaint by its client, Wilbur, afterhe was beaten up by the company’s anger management counselor namedChuck due to failure of showing improvement. Prior to this incident,Chuck also grabbed another client and shook him. XYZ has its policyagainst abuse or violence and has imposed discipline upon itsemployees who disobey it but there has been no incident of employees’termination. Further, five years ago, Chuck also had the sameincident with his previous counseling firm. In the case presented,the following are some of the legal questions that can make theverdict to the case a lot more apparent: (1) Should XYZ Company beliable for the behavior of their anger management counselor? (2) Isthere any lawful consequence to Chuck’s behavior? (3)What couldhave been done by XYZ Company to avoid the violent incident betweenits employee and client? (4)What kind of case shall be imposed on XYZCompany?
Theplaintiff, after feeling violated, has the right to file a civil caseagainst XYZ Company and a criminal case against Chuck. Any form ofdamage to another individual is a civil violation referred as tort.Negligence is the most common form of unintentional tort. A person ora company is negligent if the injury incurred to another person isunintentional especially in an event in which the individual or thecompany should have been knowledgeable that their action could bringabout harm. For Wilbur to prove that XYZ Company, three factors haveto be proven. First, Wilbur must prove that XYZ Company owed him dutyof care. This means that the company must have an obligation toprevent careless actions that bring about harm to another. Second,Wilbur must be able to prove that XYZ Company failed to give theappropriate standard of care that a sensible company or individualwould have offered in a certain event. Third, Wilbur must be able toprove that the XYZ Company’s actions were the reason for hisinjuries. In identifying the cause, a “but for” test is usuallyperformed. This means that an injury would have been prevented “butfor” the company’s actions. Although Chuck may also be sued, itis XYZ Company that has direct power over the situation. Knowing thatChuck has already done similar action the week prior to the incidentinvolving the plaintiff, XYZ Company should have made a step toimpose discipline upon Chuck. The plaintiff may argue that XYZCompany, being a Limited Liability Company, has been negligent inhiring employees. With the previous record of Chuck, the companyshould have examined carefully whether Chuck would likely be doingthe same incident when he joined XYZ. Another strong argument is thefact that Chuck has already committed the same violent act to aclient prior to the incident that happened between him and Wilbur,yet the company did not do anything to put Chuck into disciplinaryaction. Chuck, on the other hand, being an anger managementcounselor, must be an exemplar of his profession. Shaking and beatingthe client are violent acts that display unreliability in angermanagement approaches.
ForXYZ Company that is being sued for unintentional tort or negligence,the management may provide evidence to demonstrate that they did notowe any duty of care to Wilbur and that the management was able tomeet the standard of care or that the actions did not create thedamage. Further, the company should be able to provide evidence thatWilbur contributed to the infliction of injury. This is termed ascontributory negligence. Another argument that the defendant can useis the voluntary assumption of risk in which Wilbur willingly andknowingly assumed the possible risk generally related to theactivity.
My Decision as the Judge
IfI were the judge, Wilbur will win the case. There are many loopholesin the management of XYZ Company. Negligence is the primary mistakecommitted by the defendant. A person or a company is negligent if thedamage brought to another person is unintentional especially insituations wherein the company should have been aware that theiraction could bring harm. The company failed to conduct a thoroughbackground check for Chuck thus failing to recognize the reason forChuck’s dismissal from his previous work of employment. Should thecompany have known that Chuck is inherently violent, the managementcould have not hired him hence violent acts to the plaintiff couldhave been avoided. Wilbur has proven that XYZ Company owed him dutyof care. Being a client of the company undergoing an anger managementsession, XYZ has the responsibility of ensuring Wilbur’s safety.Being beaten by an inherently violent employee is totallyunacceptable and thus unlawful. In addition, XYZ Company was alreadywell-aware of the same violent incident that happened with anotherclient and Chuck however the company did not do anything to callChuck’s attention and give him certain disciplinary actions. Shouldthe company have imposed disciplinary actions during the firstincident, Chuck could have been made aware that he is in seriousdanger of being terminated in case he commits the same mistake again.Hence, it can be said, that Wilbur was right in proving that XYZCompany failed to give the appropriate standard of care that asensible company would have offered in a certain event. Wilbur’sargument that XYZ Company’s actions were the reason for hisinjuries is indeed true. From the start, the injury could havealready been avoided only if XYZ Company has been more meticulous ininvestigating the background of their employees including their pastemployment.
My Own Opinion
Personally,I believe that there is nothing to change with unintentional tort ornegligence because everything just states the fact that any businessentity or individual in position has the obligation to watch overtheir subordinates and to render only premium quality service to thecustomers or clients. The responsibility of the management begins atthe time of interviewing to the time of hiring up until the course ofemployment. Any untoward negative event that is likely to transpiredue to an employee’s fault, it is the supervisor or the managementor any direct superior that becomes accountable. Hence, a businessentity or the management must secure the operation of the businessand avoid lawsuits by hiring individuals who are truly qualified forthe position and individuals who have no history of exhibitingnegative behaviors.
PearsonEducation,. (2014). Negligence and UnintentionalTorts. Wps.prenhall.com.Retrieved 19 April 2014, fromhttp://wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_blair_law_1/2/538/137983.cw/index.html