A tort is any wrongdoing that causes injury, harm, or destruction in a manner that necessitates a claim for damages to be raised. Lawsuits based on tort are private claims under the civil law as they govern relationships between individuals. Tort suits attempt to remedy the injuries inflicted to individuals by forcing the inflicting parties to compensate their victims (Miller et al, 2010). In contrast, criminal laws govern relationships between states and individuals. They are used to punish individuals who offend the society as a whole.
First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service
- Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
- Your requirements and targets are always met
- You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
- You get a chance to become an excellent student!
Contracts are binding agreements between individuals and corporations which are enforceable by collection of laws imposed in a state. Although torts and contracts are regulated through civil law, the responsibility of an offender to the victim does not arise as a result of a contract or agreement. This means that individuals are not required to formulate contracts with the aim of preventing assault. Rather, the members of a society are required to act in a way that facilitates coexistence. In case of injury or harm, the offending party expected to compensate the transgressed individual because harm results from a failure to act as expected (Miller et al, 2010).
Claiming for Wrongful Termination
Although most jurisdictions have not enacted wrongful termination legislations per se, there are a variety of statutes and stipulations that guarantee job security to workers (Jentz, 2010). Under such statutes, complainants may file cases of wrongful termination after getting fired, laid off, or forced to resign or retire in a manner that they view contravening to their agreement with employers. In my view, the firing of Hanson and McCreedy infringed on the mutual agreement they had with their employer. There are various factors that help define a wrongful termination including; discrimination, defamation of character, breach of implied or explicit contract, breach of fair dealing and good faith, as well as constructive discharge. To have an admissible case against Capital Printing, the plaintiffs need to prove that some of these factors contributed to their dismissal.
An employer is prohibited from terminating employment of the basis of race, creed, gender, disability or for any other reason that may prove discriminatory. However, in situations where certain discrimination is not covered under the law, a complainant may difficulty in seeking legal compensation. An example of this is an instance when an employer fires a person for not liking him/her on a personal level. Nevertheless, if one can prove that the underlying reason for such dislike is any of those protected under the law, a case may be winnable. Employers are forbidden from firing in retaliation to an employee’s legal action. Moreover, when an individual is working on contract, an employer is not allowed to terminate the agreement, especially if all terms are being met. An exception to this rule is when the contract consists of an escape clause, such as a stipulation indicating the possibility of any party terminating the relationship at will. In the absence of explicitly stated contracts, the jury may consider the employers’ employment manual, the firm’s agreement with its employees, and the content of the employee handbooks as binding contracts. This is the case, especially when the employer does not explicitly document the reason behind the termination as well as the terms of employment.
In this regard, Hanson and McCreedy’s case against Central Printing is winnable. They both can recover damages for breach of his agreement because they had been given formal assurances that they employments were secure. Furthermore, fair dealing and good faith requires an employer to treat his workers fairly, especially the long-term ones like Hanson and McCreedy whose dedication to their engagements was not in question Both of them can be compensated monetarily or be awarded a negotiated severance package that would adequately compensate them.
Every business venture endeavors to minimize costs in its operations so as to maximize the gains. Nevertheless, engagements need to meet ethical standard so as to reduce the instances of losses, damages, and injuries. Various legislations have been enacted to make business premises conducive to the employees, as well as the customers (Miller, 2010). Regardless of the precautions taken, mistakes may at times occur resulting to fatal injuries and deaths. In most cases, these mistakes are viewed as negligence, which is punishable under law. By and large, issues of negligence are raised when an employee or a customer incurs a loss, such as damage to personal possessions, or injury. Latest statistics indicates raising cases of injuries to workers and customers while at a business premise. Usually, these injuries are inflicted whenever a person falls or is hit by falling objects.
Industrious engagements make workers oblivious of the risks that come with working in hazardous environments. This was the case with Rosado and Esquibel, the pipe layers of Doyle Construction Co. Nevertheless, these risks may result from managerial negligence, a failure that prevails in situations where communication is ineffective. Additionally, some enterprises ignore implementing government regulations so as to save time and resources at the expense of compromising the safety of employees as well as customers. For instance, the management of Doyle Construction Co. was aware of the importance of a trench box, shores, and sheets but opted not to use them in order to cut cost. Chain of command is a line of authority as well as responsibility that exists in any enterprise. A firm should have it in a manual so as to reduce ambiguity in leadership. Chain of command should be prepared in a manner that instructs an individual how to address a complaint, especially when employees in a certain level fail to address it conclusively. In Doyle Construction Co., the chain of command commences with Doyle, and in the case of Rosado and Esquibel against Doyle Construction Co., Strain and Babcock, as well as Doyle should be found guilty of neglecting their duties. They contravened government regulations and the jury should hold them jointly accountable for the injury and loss for Sanchez could not have expected to make such decisions solely. Sanchez may be found guilty of a lesser crime. This is because in instances when injuries are inflicted, the admissibility of a case depends on the circumstances that surrounded the occurrence of the accident. These circumstances include the locale of the accident; the status of the injured person in the organisation, i.e. whether he/she is a customer or an employee; the nature of the injuries, for instance, whether they are slight or permanent; the part played by the customer during the incident; whether the customer was mentally and physically fit prior the incidence; and whether the customer had preexisting injuries or not (Miller, 2010). In the case of Doyle Construction Co., the loss that Rosado and Esquibel suffered came as a result of negligence as well as deficiency in management, which resulted into unconventional delegation of duties. Consequently, the manager, his assistance, and the supervisor should take full responsibility for the loss.
In the case of Daniel Hampton against Vincent Van Go service station, Joe Hampton had been injured in the service area. He sustained severe injuries while escaping from the lead mechanic. He had been healthy and prior the fateful incidence. However, Vincent Van Go service station argues that he wasn’t allowed to visit the area in the first place. Daniel Hampton decided to file suit claiming that the accident came as a result of negligence. His argument is that the management neglects the safety of theiir clients by carelessly by leaving the door unlocked despite the fact that the station receives visitors of all ages, some of whom are oblivious of the possible risks. In this case, since negligence lawsuits are analyzed into elements, the expectation is that Daniel Hampton will attempt to prove each one of them beyond a reasonable doubt, in the endeavor to win the case. In its defense, the management may argue that the incident was an accident that could as well have occurred had Joe opted to roam about the parking lot or a nearby freeway. However, although Joe was injured in an employee only location, he could not have been expected to realize the extent of the risk at the age of nine years. At nine, he could not have apprehended the meaning of the sign on the door. Accessibility to parts department may not be a strong enough defense since the essence of having a door to the service areas is to lock out unauthorized persons. The management was fully aware that clients frequent the service area, and there was a possibility of kids wandering inside. As Joe was a child, the lead mechanic would have led Joe away instead of shouting at him. Daniel Hampton may win the case though he may have to excuse himself for living his son unattended in such an environment.
Waiver of Liability
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, cases of medical negligence are on the rise. Despite the trust that the citizens have on doctors, they too make mistakes, like everybody else. However, when there is a feeling that a medical practitioner has handled his client negligently, the law guarantees the victim’s right of seeking compensation for physical, emotional, and financial sufferings. While filing a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff should consider checking the medical negligence statute in the jurisdiction. In most instances, admissibility is within two years following the incidence, and the case must be filed in an appropriate court. A complainant is required to obtain all medical records from the clinic that were attending to his condition.
In the case of Norbert against Laura Grothe’s Medical Center, the complainant had signed a waiver of liability before his examination. A waiver of liability is an acknowledgement made orally or in writing before engaging in a risky activity (Miller, 2010). In signing the waiver, Norbert forfeited his right to sue in case of injury or damage while undergoing the examination. Norbert does not contradict the medical centers assertion that he consented to the signing. Even with the absence of a waiver, it would be difficult for Norbert to win the case because his action did show that he voluntarily gave up the right of recovering damages. This scenario is referred to as implied waiver. Norbert voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by consenting to the exercise.
However, some juries disapprove waivers arguing that such clauses may allow a negligent organization to fend off responsibility for reckless conduct. This is because waivers make the victims entirely responsible for the loss. Despite the cautious enforcement of waivers by some juries, the likelihood of Norbert winning the case is limited as the exercise was not an emergency, and normal procedures were used. Therefore, in my view, the court should grant the motion for summary judgment.
Lastly, many jurisdictions have been enacting tort reforms legislations with an aim of changing the existing laws in order enhance the relevance with the prevailing situations. For example, previous laws did not provide for liability as a result of damage to property as it is difficult to determine the neglecting party. Moreover, these laws help limit the monetary compensation that a victim can recover as compensation, as well as punitive damages. They also calls on the injured party to better his/her prove so as to make the tort lawsuits easier to handle.