Category: Breakdown

Business Law

The sale of the Rolex and Louis Vuitton bags by Mike Merchant is a misrepresentation because he is claiming to potential customers like Suzy and Samuel that the goods are real. Intentional misrepresentation which is also known as fraud is described when the party intends to induce another person to rely on this misrepresentation(Cheeseman). Mike could argue that he did not know that the Rolexes and Louis Vuitton bags were fake and that they were just seconds. Suzy had the belief that the handbag was real when she purchased it from Mike. This makes Mike liable to Suzy for misrepresentation because Suzy paid for the bag thinking it was real. Suzy could try and receive the money back for the bag purchased in court. She could argue that Mike did not make it completely clear that the bags he was selling were seconds, which are not of the same quality as the actual product but it is still authentic. Suzy could also argue that Mike was advertising the goods as real, authentic products. Mike’s defense could be that Suzy unjustifiably believed that information given to her because her boyfriend bought a Rolex watch from Mike thinking that the product was fake. Why did Suzy think that products were real but her boyfriend did not? It could be argued that Suzy did not do enough research and did not do her due diligence when buying the product. In this case with Mike and Suzy, Mike will most likely win the case because he was advertising the products as seconds so it is reasonable to assume that the products are fake. We know how much Suzy paid for the fake bag, but how much is the price of a real Louis Vuitton bag? This answer to this question could be the difference between winning and losing the case. If in fact, the $999 price that Suzy paid is the same price an authentic bag is being sold for, then she should be awarded the amount back. If the price she paid was a discount, because it was advertised as a second, then Mike would most likely not owe her the money back.

The determination that makes Mike liable or not has to do with the buyer. Liability can change when the buyer buys something thinking that the product is real, and a buyer buying something knowing it is a fake version of the product. Samuel buys a Rolex from Mike knowing when he purchased it that the product is fake and continues to buy the product. Mike would not be liable to Samuel for misrepresentation because Samuel knew when he was buying the product that it was fake and proceeded anyway. If Samuel took Mike to court for misrepresentation, he would most lose the case. Samuel bought the Rolex watch from Mike for $99, a real Rolex watch typically retails for thousands of dollars so he knew it was fake. Since both Mike and Samuel knew that the Rolex was fake, it could be said that the two of them committed criminal conspiracy. Louis Vuitton and Rolex would take Mike to court for copyright violation. Mike has violated the company’s copyright laws and protections that they have put on all of their products. Louis Vuitton and Rolex can sue Mike for violating their copyright law and be awarded the money Mike makes by using their brand and products. Mike’s only argument to Louis Vuitton and Rolex would be that the copyright protection did not cover the changes he made to the products. Ultimately, Louis Vuitton and Rolex would win this case because Mike was selling the products as authentic even though they were fake. This means that Mike would be liable to Louis Vuitton and Rolex for the sale of fake replicas of their products intending to deceive buyers into thinking it was real and making a profit off of it.

Suzy’s best friend Betty is committing harassment to Suzy and Samuel when she claims in public that the couple are liars and thieves and that they buy knock-offs. Harassment is a repeated annoyance with threats. Since this is happening in public and people can hear what is going on Betty is also committing slander against Suzy and Samuel. Slander is oral defamatory to another person. In this case, the people passing by when this altercation is happening are the ones that hear the things that Betty is saying about Suzy and Samuel. As a result of Betty’s slander and harassment, Suzy and Samuel begin to have nervous breakdowns which could also be defined as battery since the couple are experiencing injuries as a result of things Betty is saying about them. Samuel and Suzy can take Betty to court for slander and try and receive some sort of damages. Suzy could claim that Betty is liable for slander because her boss was walking by and overheard the interaction which later promoted Suzy’s boss to fire her. After all, she was not bringing the right image to the company she worked for. Betty’s argument against the case of slander would be that she was not telling lies and that Suzy and Samuel were, in fact, buying fakes. Betty would win this case because slander must be a false statement. In Betty’s defense, she would say that the things she said about Suzy and Samuel were in fact true meaning that it was not slander. Concerning the case of battery with Suzy and Samuel against Betty, the couple can argue that they were physically harmed due to Betty’s vulgar and hostile tone by experiencing nervous breakdowns. The battery is defined as indirect physical contact between the perpetrator and the victim, which results in some sort of injury(Cheeseman). Betty’s defense to this claim would be that she did not physically touch either of the two and that she never intended for any sort of physical harm to occur to the couple as a result of a verbal argument. Betty could also claim that Suzy and Samuel completely made up that they had nervous breakdowns. It is hard to identify if an individual had a nervous breakdown in the past unless there were witnesses there to attest to the demeanor of Suzy and Samuel at the time of the incident. Betty would win the case of battery against Suzy and Samuel because there was never any physical contact between the two parties in this regard and a verbal argument it would be tough to prove that Betty intended to cause harm to them not know that they would have mental breakdowns.

When Suzy takes her Christian Louboutin heeled shoe off and swings it at Betty, missing but causing her to fall on the ground and injuring her head, she is going to claim that Suzy assaulted her. When taking the assault claims to court, Betty is going to say that Suzy intended to hit her with the heel of the shoe even though she missed completely and did not hit her at all. Suzy still swung at Betty so there is clear intent to hit her, in which Betty would sue Suzy for monetary compensation for the injuries she sustained to her head when she fell trying to dodge the swing of the shoe. Since Betty was harassing Suzy and Samuel, Suzy is going to claim that the actions in which she swung her shoe at Betty were made in self-defense because they were having mental breakdowns. Suzy can also claim that in light of her mental breakdown she was scared and only raised the shoe at Betty because she was defending herself and Samuel. If Suzy has no record of previous violence, then she was likely acting as a result of the mental breakdown and was not looking to cause violence for no reason. Assault is defined as the threat of immediate harm or offensive contact, and actual physical contact is not necessary(Cheeseman). Suzy would be liable for assault against Betty even though she did not physically hit her, she still has the actions that she was going to and as result, Betty had reason to believe that she was in immediate danger and could be harmed. Samuel would not be liable for assault because his girlfriend is the one who raised the shoe at Betty and he was just standing there not taking any actions against Betty for his mental breakdown. Betty could then sue Suzy for damages that she sustained from the assault such as medical bills that occurred because of it. Although Betty did start the argument Suzy is still liable because she escalated the encounter from a verbal altercation to an attempt to cause physical harm to Betty.

When Lenny the bodyguard slips and falls on the sidewalk subsequently breaking his ankle, the restaurant Le Bon Hotdog could be liable. Lenny would claim that they should not have left their garbage bags out for a long period because they knew that the sanitation department workers were on strike. Le Bon Hotdog would argue that the grease from their garbage bags did not cause Lenny to slip and that it was from the unfinished sidewalk. The restaurant can also claim that it is the sanitation department that is liable because it is their job to pick up the garbage on a certain schedule. Le Bon Hotdog can also claim that they are not liable because Lenny was running down the sidewalk at an unsafe speed not watching where he is going making it easier to slip and hurt himself. Ultimately, Le Bon Hotdog would not be liable to Lenny for damages based on his injuries. There is no way to foresee that grease from their garbage bags would leak causing a slippery sidewalk.

Lenny can also sue the New York City Sanitation Department for damages for not picking up the trash in a timely manner because the workers are on strike. The sanitation department can argue that by not picking up the trash there was no foreseeable danger to citizens walking on the sidewalk in front of Le Bon Hotdog. Lenny’s counter-argument would be that the sanitation department has a duty to carry out their job and collect the trash. Even if there is a worker strike the sanitation department should have found other ways to pick up the trash or resolve the strike promptly so that it would not affect the citizens. The department of sanitation would not be liable for damages because there is no danger in leaving trash out for a couple of days.

Broken concrete left on the sidewalk by the AJ construction company can be considered gross negligence because they did not do their job. The AJ employees knowingly left the sidewalk in disrepair with broken pieces in favor of getting home. Gross negligence can be defined as showing little care in or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard conduct and often described as willful misconduct and reckless behavior(Cheeseman). The construction companies defense would be that Lenny slipped on the sidewalk because of the grease from the trash can from Le Bon Hotdog, placing the blame on either the restaurant or the sanitation department. Lenny could have fallen due to him rushing to get over to the fight in which he was not being careful and pushing people out of the way. It is up for debate how exactly Lenny fell, he could have slipped on the grease or tripped over the pieces of the sidewalk or he could have just tripped from rushing over to the fight. We would not find out the real answer unless there were eyewitnesses that so Lenny and could clearly see how he fell. Lenny’s argument against the AJ construction company is that they failed to properly fix the sidewalk and left pieces out just because the workers wanted to get home the day before. The AJ construction company is liable for damages to Lenny because of the carefree attitude in which the workers left the sidewalk that was in bad shape just because they wanted to leave early and clearly did not care about the citizen’s safety. Lenny could then sue AJ construction company for the medical bills he received when he was in the hospital as well as missed compensation because he would be unable to work for some time due to the broken ankle.

When Lenny falls and then hits Pam in the face with the piece of concrete, injuring her face and breaking her phone, he is committing battery. The battery is defined as unauthorized harmful physical contact that results in some sort of injury(Cheeseman). Lenny’s argument against the battery is that he never meant to hit Pam, he meant to hit Suzy who was in the middle of a fight. In Lenny’s defense, he was trying to break up the fight because he is a bodyguard and unintentionally hit Pam. Regardless of if Lenny meant to hit Pam or not he still hit and injured her meaning that he is liable for battery. Pam can then sue Lenny for damages, which could include hospital bills, possible plastic surgery if her face was badly damaged from the hit as well as the money to buy her a new phone since he also broke her phone.

It could also be argued that Lenny committed assault on Suzy. Lenny had attempted to hit Suzy in the head with a piece of concrete. Assault is the threat of immediate harm and physical contact is not necessary(Cheeseman). Just because Lenny ended up not hitting Suzy with the concrete she was still the intended target. Lenny’s defense to these assault claims are that he was trying to break up the fight between Suzy and Betty. Lenny only threw the piece of concrete because he was unable to get up a break up the fight personally because he broke his ankle. Suzy’s argument against Lenny is that the fight was a verbal altercation and resulted in a mental breakdown, it was not a physical fight where it needed to break up imminently. Suzy argues that the throwing of the piece of concrete from the sidewalk was unnecessary for the circumstances and that it was extremely dangerous. This dangerous action by Lenny makes him liable for assault on Suzy because although he did not hit her, he meant for the projectile to hit her and cause harm to her. Suzy can then sue Lenny for damages based on the assault and be awarded money because of trauma induced by the near-miss of the concrete thrown at her.

Works Cited

1. Cheeseman, Henry. Legal Foundations of Business. Pearson.

The idea of getting therapy and actually working out your issues that you are battling are long gone. Nowadays, there is a much easier and cheaper method of taking care of your mental breakdowns and relieving some emotions. Cutting off the front of your hair is now the new craze and is the form of ultimate expression, to fix yourself and feel better – with a pair of scissors. Women giving themselves bangs has become a trend for all age groups, in a form of dealing with their emotions and stress, in a physically harmless way. In “The Risk of Getting Bangs” by Kaitlyn Tiffany, bangs can represent the ongoing, internal battle of mental health issues that many women are facing. Tiffany argues that mental health issues are a combination of impulsive decisions and mental breakdowns, resulting in emotional-distress bangs. This is significant because mental health issues can lead to more severe decisions than an impulsive haircut, if not taken seriously and actually dealt with in a professional manner.

In “The Risk of Getting Bangs”, Tiffany concentrates on the connection between breakups and impulsive decisions, and mental breakdowns. Tiffany tries to understand these crises and conclusions by checking out fashion blogs, different celebrities, and a variety of posts from multiple women, about their bangs story. Alyssa Limperis is a comedian that Tiffany spoke with, about her own personal story on bangs. Limperis states that she had posted a tweet about bangs versus therapy and goes on to tell Tiffany that when it comes down to making life-changing decisions, she sees two options which include making a healthy and good decision or getting a haircut that will make her cry for the next six months (Tiffany, p.1). This can show that women tend to make impulsive decisions during tough times in their lives. Lauryn Lingenfelter, a YouTuber, also went on to say to Tiffany that every time she had gotten a haircut, it felt like some sort of mental breakdown, but she did not understand why (Tiffany, p.3). Hair is very symbolic and empowering to women; it is a sense of identity, and without it, it can be disturbing and scary to many, especially the person who did it themselves, who is possibly suffering some more serious, internal battles.

Hair is very important to a woman, building a woman’s strength and femininity, and shaping the idea of what she thinks about herself looks. The majority of women feel a sense of femininity and empowerment when they have just gotten their hair done at the hair salon, making them feel extra beautiful. The whole issue of cutting bangs yourself, can possibly reduce the sense of femininity and rather increase or decrease the idea of empowerment, as one might feel better and stronger after making such a drastic decision to cut bangs. Nora Drake, a communications director, wrote her masters thesis on Britney Spear, about her incident in 2007 when she shaved her head in front of more than 70 photographers and goes on to say “hair is such a symbol of femininity, and when you get rid of it entirely it shocks and scares people” (Tiffany, p.2). The bangs movement is relatable to women and it joins them together, creating a connection of femininity and basically saying that it is ok to cut your own bangs in a rough situation. Women feel like they are taking action cutting their own hair but they do not see the issues this creates within them, as the bangs symbolize deeper, mental issues.

Women are filled with emotions that can cause stressful moments in life that lead them to impulsive decisions that they may regret afterward. Bangs cut by women themselves is seen as a joke and something funny that happens after a breakup or mental breakdown, but there is an impression of darkness and instability. Bangs can be a more internal, mental issue that women are not ready to face, and Rachael Gibson, better known as The Hair Historian, recognizes that bangs incline to a sign of emotional distress (Tiffany, p.4). Women can be depressed and extremely stressed but do not recognize the warning signs, and when the pressure is on, they get a pair of scissors and cut their hair, instead of getting professional help. This movement sounds like a cry for help but is taken as nothing seriously because everyone finds it relatable and hilarious. Mental health is an important topic that should not be overlooked and should be treated if there is something wrong.

Kaitlyn Tiffany’s interpretation of the connection between mental health issues and getting bangs shows how women are facing an internal battle with themselves, which leads them to such radical and spontaneous decisions. Women chop off their hair to relieve that in the moment stress and sensation of never-ending pain, instead of actually going to therapy. Breakups can lead to mental breakdowns and then to breakdown/breakup bangs, in a way to distract from the actual emotions inside. The bangs give the women a sense of power over themselves and they believe the bangs were a form of action taken to help themselves feel better. Cutting your own bangs is a way to keep your mental health in the shadows and to put a mask on for others to believe you are ok. These mental breakdowns bangs should be taken more seriously as many people hide their emotions and never get the right help that they actually need for their mental health.

Research Paper

The Bhagavad-Gita has been teaching many things to influence a lot of people started in India, and gradually his teachings were spreading to West, and eventually, it is still considered as an effective way for our modern society. These days, Japan has been known as one of the most developed countries in the world and they put a lot of effort to their development. However, due to their economic reasons, a lot of Japanese people overwork these days and some of them happen to cause heavy mental breakdowns and lead to death in the worst-case scenario. Also, not only the economical reason, Japanese culture is also possibly considered a reason to cause heavy health issues with those Japanese people who work. Personally growing up in Japan, it was able to see that Japanese people do not get educated to have their own opinions or thoughts since it is focused on being the same as others. Some people say this is the uniqueness of Japanese culture and it has been inherited for a long time. However, this leads to the issues of people have trouble with their perspectives and have a mental breakdown as working. And it has been major issue in Japanese society. Considering this issue in Japan, how this social issue can be changed by a teaching of the Bhagavad-Gita? Gita teaches the meaning of working toward goals and individual duty. I will argue whether Gita’s teaching can provide new perspectives and lessons to help people in modern Japanese society to deal with working issues.

First, as starting with more specific details of what is exactly happening to labor in modern Japanese society, according to Tim Craig, he states that Japan has been developed economically and socially after 1970 which is post war, “The Japan they grew up in was a rich country, and they had enjoyed the fruits of that wealth, having their university education paid for by their parents, traveling abroad and seeing other lifestyles, and developing a taste for the good life.”(321). Japanese social development has been shaping their perspectives toward their lifestyle and it is inherited to working in Japanese society to young people now. Developing economically may create positive consequences for a country, however, to grow economically, there needs to be required a lot of hard work by citizens and it can be considered as their physical sacrifice.

Tim Craig also states that their working balance toward the economic development has affected their health balance as well. Japan requires a lot of overwork for a firm and statistically, it is shown that overwork has created people’s mental disorders come from stress and the number of their mental breakdowns has increased every year, moreover, the number of deaths has increased as well. (Craig, 327)

Considering this overwork issue in Japan, it is able to compare this issue with a teaching of the ​Bhagavad-Gita. Once Gita has taught that “Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment inaction” (Bhagavad Gita, 37). He talks about Karman-yoga, which means acting without attachment to results. It implies that people usually only view the results they eventually;lly would get, and they do not get to experience to feel every process of their actions and lose their real purpose. In a teaching of Gita, he taught people that every process on their action is important to live in a life, find their real purpose why they want to do it, what they are doing it for. Considering overwork in Japan, a lot of Japanese people think that they think they “have to” work for a company without having their own passion. A lot of Japanese people grew up without having their own opinions or desire in their actions because of their education style and culture. They are educated to follow rules and have the same opinions with other people considered as “teamwork”. They do not value one’s passion or uniqueness. Furthermore, it is important to think about what you want to do in the first place not thinking about school or company as Gita stated. Focusing on your own desire on their action and process can change the way Japanese people think about the meaning of working in modern society.

Second, Gita’s teaching has inspired a lot of people in the history, it actually can help people to make more mature ideas and decisions in the modern society. According to Divya Raina ​and ​Geeta Balodi​:

They provide the information/data of the difference between the people who have gained knowledge from Gita’s teaching, and the people who have not. The result indicates that the people who have gained the teaching of Gaito have higher maturity levels than those who don’t. They have gained knowledge of how to take their own responsibilities when they make a mistake, how to handle their stress, the way to talk toward others, committed to their own work. And it is also stated that those who have not known the teaching of Gita are mostly young generation people. (134-135).

And the experiment above is from 2014, it shows that Gita’s teaching. Gita once mentioned that “Know that nature’s qualities come from me-lucidity, passion, and dark inertia; I am not in them, they are in me.” (​The ​Bhagavad-Gita, 74). He implies that these “lucidity”,” passion” and “dark inertia” need to be understood as these three are united with “self”. They are naturally classified in themselves as qualities people need to control, and to control these, it depends on one’s self-action no matter the result is bad or good. This teaching of Gita is effective to inspire young people in Japan. As it is mentioned above, Japanese people value the importance of teamwork not individual work, so that actually leads them to lose their own real passion and purpose in working. It is considered that teamwork is also one of Japanese culture and it is their uniqueness compared to other countries. However, individual work can deliver the thinking of self-opinion, self-responsibility, self-care, and so on. As another possible reason of mental breakdown in Japan, there is always heavy pressure in a company since they have a rigid hierarchical relationship as a culture. Learning how to take care of themselves mentally and physically can help to reduce the number of mental breakdowns happen such as due to those issues of heavy pressure and overworking even though they make a mistake on their work.

Third, following the importance of individualism from the teaching of Gita, it is important to consider that self-duty actually matters to develop better management as working with others to cooperate with each other, which is an effective way to think about the problems of modern labor in Japan. According to Dr. C.V. Jayamani, Management requires an ability to be able to cooperate with others for development.

Once Krisha said that individual work interacts with other’s work, whether one person does good or bad, the action possibly would flow to other’s actions as well. And this strategy works the same way to modern management.(Jayamani, 62)

In the Bhagavad-Gita, Gita says that “ A man of discipline should always discipline himself, remain in seclusion, isolated, his thought and self well controlled, without possessions or hope.”(65). Focusing on one’s own duty in the first place can provide more benefits to one’s community as well. Self-duty brings a knowledge of how to take own responsibility including health. Since Japan has health issues from working, bringing the perspective of self-duty to Japanese culture helps to manage their own lifestyle. Even the problem of overworking in Japan due to the economic development, it is essential to know how to take care of their health from overworking so they can manage themselves from stress, depression, or anxiety. Personally growing up in Japan, I have seen that a lot of Japanese people tend to care about other people’s eyes, and they think it is embarrassing to say their own opinions. Some people even feel more stress and anxiety just to speak up their own minds. A lot of Japanese people do not have a knowledge of taking their own duties, this is a very serious social issue for us as modern society is growing internationally in globalization. The teaching of self-duty from the Gita can help a lot of Japanese young people who have trouble in working. Not just to help their mental breakdown toward working, it is able to provide a new perspective and develop them as human beings and eventually build up a better society in the future.

In conclusion, from the teaching of the Bhagavad-Gita, he teaches the importance of focusing on one’s action than fruits, which implies that people only view results/rewards as following to take action and do not get to see the real purpose of the action. Japan has an issue of working in modern society, there are problems of overworking, not having a purpose or reason of working because of their culture. And the society itself requires people to do hard work to keep growing economic development due to population balance. The teaching of karma-yoga from Gita can provide lessons to Japanese people that it is important to know the process of the action they are taking rather than seeing what they get rewarded eventually. Also, there’s an actual difference in their maturity level between people who have gained knowledge of the Gita and people who have not. By gaining knowledge of Gita, people can know a way to take care of their own responsibilities when they make a mistake or their own health from stress or anxiety. Since Japan has a working issue that leads to people’s health problems, it is able to state that Gita’s teaching can provide a way to solve a way to take care of their health form working issues.

In Gita’s another teaching, he teaches about the importance of having self-duty. When considering working in a society in general, it is important to think that self-duty can interact with a way to cooperate with others. Japanese culture focuses on working in a community or “teamwork” and it is still inherited today, Gita teaches that gaining a knowledge of self-duty make it better to work in a community. Gita’s teaching can help Japanese people who work these days by providing new perspectives and life purposes as living in society. Working is a part of our society, it possibly affects our lives both positively and negatively. And it has been affecting Japanese society negatively these days. They should know their own duties as a human beings not just a laborer, one person’s different perspective and not being caught up with others’ opinions can create a gateway to save a lot of Japanese people with working issues. Furthermore, the teachings of Bhagavad-Gita is not just effective in the past, there are a lot of things people in modern society can learn as human beings no matter where they are from.

Work Cited

1. Craig, Tim,​ Ways of Living; Chapter 6:Live to Work or Work to Live? The Search for Work-life Balance in 21st Century Japan. ​Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture, 2009, pp. 311-344
2. Dr. C.V. Jayamani, ​Bhagavad Gita and Management​. Cochin University of Science and Technology, Vol. I. No.1 June 2013, pp. 62-65 Miller, Barbara Stoler, translator. ​The Bhagavad-Gita: Krishna’s Counsel in Time of War​. By Bhagavad Gita, Bantam Classic, August 1986.
3. Raina, Diva, Balodi, Geeta, ​A Comparative Study of Emotional Maturity and Values in Bhagavad Gita Readers and Non-Readers​. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 4, No. 10, October 2014

Summary of facts

1. Mr. Simons (‘the Appellant’) worked for Berminster County Council (‘the Council’), as a teacher at Brumington Hall School. He is a perfectionist and this made him particularly vulnerable to occupational stress.
2. Mr. Simons was advised by his doctor to seek a much less stressful form of employment immediately, as he was at risk of suffering a mental breakdown. Despite this advice, Mr. Simons elected to continue with his work as a teacher. He was dedicated to his students.
3. The school authorities were informed by Mr. Simons of his doctor’s comments regarding his vulnerability to stress at work. As a result, the school authorities reduced Mr. Simon’s workload as much as possible and encouraged him to use their counseling service.
4. Mr. Simons eventually suffered a breakdown and sued the Council for negligence, applying the Fairchild [2003] 1 AC 32 principle and contending that the Council should have dismissed him from work, in his best interests, as soon as they became aware of his doctor’s comments.
5. At trial, the judge found for Mr. Simons based on the principle in Fairchild.
6. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal who dismissed the Council’s appeal and now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Grounds of appeal

1. 7. That the trial judge erred in applying Coxall v Goodyear Great Britain Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1010. This error had led the trial judge to wrongly conclude that the Council had breached its duty to Mr. Simons by failing to dismiss him. The trial judge should have been aware of statements of principle in other cases; which rightly indicate that an employer cannot be in breach of duty for failing to dismiss an employee who wanted to continue working despite medical advice.
2. 8. That the trial judge also erred in concluding that the Fairchild principle applied on the facts of the case: it is the general ‘but for’ causation rule, and not some Fairchild relaxation of it, that applies to occupational stress cases.

Appellant outcome

1. 9. The best outcome for the Appellant would be for the Supreme Court to allow the appeal and the conviction of duty of breach in negligence be quashed, on the basis that Coxall was wrongly applied and led the judge to incorrectly conclude that Council had breached its duty to Mr. Simons.

Respondent outcome

1. 10. The best outcome for the Respondent would be for the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal, and uphold the decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeal. The Appellant should be found guilty of negligence in its breach of duty owed for failing to dismiss the Respondent from work.

Legal issues

Legal Background

1. In relation to occupational stress, the general rule is that employees owe a common law duty to take reasonable care to safeguard their employees’ health and safety. This includes a duty to control stress levels at work.
2. Previously, there is no legal duty upon an employer to prevent an adult employee from doing work which he is willing to do. If there is a slight risk, it is for the employee to weigh it against the desirability or necessity of employment.[footnoteRef:1] [1: Withers v Perry Chain Co Ltd [1961] 1 WLR 1314, per Devlin LJ.]
3. The employer can only reasonably be expected to take steps which are likely to do some good, though the court is likely to require expert evidence on whether the steps taken suffice.[footnoteRef:2] The lack of expert evidence will not be fatal to a successful claim; however, it is necessary to demonstrate that the workload in question gave rise to a foreseeable risk of psychiatric harm.[footnoteRef:3] [2: Hatton v Sutherland [2002] ICR 613, [34].] [3: Hone v Six Continents Retail Limited [2007] I.R.L.R. 49, CA.]
4. It was made clear in Coxall v Goodyear Great Britain Ltd[footnoteRef:4], however, that whether or not an employer in a particular case was under a duty to remove an employee from employment which exposed him to a risk of physical danger was dependant upon the magnitude of the risk involved. The amount of care which a prudent man will take varies with the circumstances and will be proportionate to the degree of risk run.[footnoteRef:5] [4: [2002] EWCA Civ 1010.] [5: Mackintosh v Mackintosh [1886] SLR 23, per Lord Neaves.]
5. There are two components in determining the magnitude of the risk – the seriousness of the injury risked, and the likelihood of the injury in fact being caused.[footnoteRef:6] Employers are only in breach of their duty if they have failed to take reasonable steps in the circumstances to prevent the stress, and where the foreseeable injury arises from his breach of duty. Whether an injury is foreseeable depends on the employer’s knowledge, or what he ought reasonably to know, about an individual employee.[footnoteRef:7] [6: Salmond on Torts (10th ed) 438.] [7: Barber v Somerset CC [2004] UKHL 13.]

Appellant’s Case

1. 6. The Appellant must rely on the statements of principle in other cases, which rightly indicate that an employer cannot be in breach of duty for failing to dismiss an employee who wanted to continue working despite medical advice. Yet, the Appellant must first prove that the trial judge erred in applying Coxall, and this error led the trial judge to wrongly conclude that the Council had breached its duty.

The magnitude of risk test adopted in Coxall does not conform to all types of work-related harm, rendering it inapplicable.

1. 7. Coxall stated that the employer’s reaction must be proportionate to and reasonable taking into account the magnitude of risk in question. The court in Coxall referred to Hatton in which it was held that “the employer can only reasonably be expected to take steps which are likely to do some good”. The Appellant should submit that the magnitude of risk test in Coxall, combined with the rationale in Hatton, are lacking in clarity. Although the general principles relating to stress at work cases are identified in Hatton, they need care in their application to the facts of the case under consideration.
2. 8. It is difficult to determine the magnitude of a particular type of risk. It is also impractical to compare different types of risk according to a single standard, for there are important differences between pressure, stress, and the physical or psychiatric consequences.

Distinguishing occupational stress from other work-related injuries

1. 9. For the purposes of Simons, it is important to distinguish stress from impending harm to health, such as injuries suffered in accidents at work or illnesses caused by exposure to deleterious physical conditions at work. In regard to the latter, the employer can be expected to take responsibility for keeping the physical risks presented by the workplace to a minimum, for he is largely in control of the workplace, equipment, and physical conditions in which the work is done. As Hale LJ noted, ‘stress is merely the mechanism which may but usually does not lead to damage to health.’[footnoteRef:8] Contrariwise, he is much less in control of the way in which may of his employees, especially those who are expected to prioritize their own tasks, choose to do their work, and balance the demands of their work and life outside the workplace. Therefore, responsibility both for causing and for doing something about the workplace’s psychological risks may be shared between many people, family, friends, and the employee himself. [8: Hatton (n 2), [27].]
2. 10. The Respondent may refute this, that the Council owed a duty of care to have a system of checks and balances to detect the early warning signs of stress, or to monitor Mr. Simons’ mental health throughout. However, the Appellant should state that the imposition of this kind of duty of care is too high in the circumstances. Mr. Simons, who recognizes that he is experiencing levels of stress which may be harmful to his health, must independently make decisions about how to respond to the stress. The individual who feels the stress must take initiative, for the employer’s room for maneuver may in some cases be limited. Dismissing the employee may be an option; however, where the employee is still willing to work, dismissal based on risk would constitute a restriction on the employee’s freedom. This view is supported by Hale LJ: ‘In many of these cases, it will be very hard to know what would have done some let alone enough good. This is a matter on which the court is likely to require expert evidence.’ This would be ‘oppressive to the employee’ and limits his ability to find work.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Withers (n 1).]
3. 11. Consequently, the Appellant should assert the type of risk in Simons (mental breakdown) as distinguishable from that in Coxall (physical danger). A standard of objectivity attaches to the latter. “There is nothing in the nature of a stress or shock situation which ordains physical as opposed to psychological injury. The determinative factor is the particular vulnerability of an individual by virtue of his physical make-up.”[footnoteRef:10] Psychological harm is more difficult to identify, and holding employers liable in terms of negligence related to workplace stress would create too wide an ambit of liability. [10: Ivancevich, ‘Who’s liable for stress on the job?’ (1985) 64 Harvard Business Review.]

Regard should be had to statements of principle in other cases concerning the employer’s duty

1. 12. The Court of Appeal held in Hatton v Sutherland[footnoteRef:11] that to be successful in a workplace stress case, the claimant must establish the essential elements of a negligence action. This includes the duty of care; breach of duty; causation and foreseeability. The Appellant will rely on this four-stage test as clear and adequate. [11: Hatton (n 2).]
2. 13. In her judgment, Hale LJ set out the threshold question relating to harm and injury: whether the kind of harm done to this particular employee was reasonably foreseeable, with foreseeability depending on what an employer knows or ought reasonably to know about the individual employee.[footnoteRef:12] The employer can only reasonably be expected to take steps that are likely to do some good or steps reasonable in the circumstances bearing in mind the magnitude of risk and the gravity of harm which may occur. The claimant must show that breach of duty has either caused or materially contributed to the harm suffered; there must be a risk of illness that the claimant’s employers ought to have foreseen and ought to have properly averted.[footnoteRef:13] [12: Ibid.] [13: Garrett v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 395.]

Foreseeability of impending illness based on repetition of symptoms

1. 14. According to the principle in Hartman,[footnoteRef:14] an employer will have breached his duty to an employee if he subjects his employee to severe pressure of work in circumstances where the employer knows or ought reasonably to foresee that the pressure is likely to cause the employee to suffer some form of breakdown which results in psychiatric injury. Lord Phillips states that it is “necessary to demonstrate before breach of duty can be established, that the employer had particular reason to apprehend the danger that such injury would be caused to the individual employee.”[footnoteRef:15] Therefore, the critical issue, in this case, was whether the Council should have appreciated that Mr. Simons was at risk of succumbing to psychiatric injury, despite them having already reduced his workload and encouraged him to use their counseling service. The Appellant should submit that there is no basis for concluding that working as a teacher is a high-risk occupation, which in the words of Scott Baker LJ, “imposes a higher than normal standard of alertness on employers in respect of the risk that employees will sustain psychiatric injury.”[footnoteRef:16] [14: Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 6.] [15: Bonser v RJB Mining (UK) Ltd [2004] IRLR 164.] [16: Ibid (n 15).]
2. 15. The judge in Hartman identifies three alerting factors[footnoteRef:17] which would have alerted the defendant’s employer: (i) knowledge from the claimant’s original application for reasonable adjustment or retirement due to ill-health, (ii) the aftermath of previous accidents or symptoms suffered by the claimant, and (iii) complaints about overwork. As Mr. Simons had not informed the Council of any previous mental breakdowns or symptoms as a result of occupational stress, it would be difficult to prove that the Council breached its duty. The repetition of complaints and symptoms are foundational factors, as evident in Walker v Northumberland County Council.[footnoteRef:18] In this case, Mr. Walker had two nervous breakdowns. As the employer had been deemed to have been “put on notice” after the first breakdown, Mr. Walker’s second breakdown was therefore entirely foreseeable. [17: Ibid.] [18: [1995] I.C.R. 702.]
3. 16. As various members of the workforce in Coxall expressed concerns regarding the new paint, and thereafter various members suffered adverse symptoms in response to the work condition, Simons may be distinguished. The risk exposed to Mr. Simons was not mentioned to have drawn expressions of concern from various members of the workforce. Mr. Simons’ condition was not obvious to his managers, and it was unclear that the Council had received a clear indication of his impending illness. There were no previous incidents or complaints which may amount to a sufficient indication of impending illness as to put Mr. Simons on notice. Mr. Simons’ vulnerability to stress and his doctor’s note were merely part of a history of which the school authorities were aware. As such, the Appellant should submit that the foreseeability component of the magnitude of risk test is not been fulfilled, thus respectfully urge the Court, under the principle in Dickins v O2 Plc,[footnoteRef:19] to take into account the whole background when considering the Council’s reaction. [19: [2008] EWCA Civ 1144.]
4. 17. The Appellant should submit, based on the principle in The Wagon Mound (No. 2),[footnoteRef:20] that Mr. Simons’ risk of mental breakdown was a mere possibility or so small that it was reasonable for the Council to neglect it. This is even where a conscientious employer has assessed that there is some potential risk of psychiatric injury. [20: [1967] 1 A.C. 617.]

The Council’s actions

1. 18. In Lane Group Plc v Farmiloe,[footnoteRef:21] Judge Peter Clarke held that there should only be a breach where the risk of injury could not be adequately controlled by other equally or more effective means. It may be argued the reduction of workload was not an effective enough means to adequately control the risk of injury, for Mr. Simons would not have suffered a mental breakdown if it were in fact effective. It is also recognized that an employer’s provision of or referral to appropriate counseling or treatment services is not a panacea by which employers could discharge their duty of care in all cases.[footnoteRef:22] The counseling service was not the sole option offered as a means of stress alleviation, however – it was an additional option encouraged ‘if necessary.’ Accordingly, it was wrong to find the Council liable for that illness and its consequences, for the nature of the work per se, was not described to have posed a generally foreseeable risk of mental illness. The school authorities did take into account the doctor’s note and reduced Mr. Simons’ workload accordingly, which is what a reasonable and prudent employer would have done. One doctor’s note outlining the claimant’s predisposition to stress would not warrant immediate dismissal, in the reasonable sense. [21: [2004] P.I.Q.R. P22.] [22: Daw v Intel Corporation [2007] EWCA Civ 70.]
2. 19. In another of the co-joined appeals in Hatton, the case of Jones v Train well Training Centre,[footnoteRef:23] nothing was done by the employer to alleviate the difficulties despite the employee’s several complaints about an excessive workload. In contrast, it would be wrong to contend that the Council had not at least done ‘some good’, by reducing Mr. Simons’ workload as much as possible and encouraging him to use their counseling service. By making these reasonable adjustments in light of the employee’s vulnerability, the Council has complied with its specific duty under the Equality Act 2010. [23: Hatton (n 2).]

A balance must be maintained between the need for dismissal and an employee’s personal autonomy.

1. 20. In Barber, it was held that the employer is generally entitled to take what he is told by his employee at face value, and will not be in breach of duty in allowing a willing employee to continue the job if the only reasonable and effective step would have been to dismiss or demote the employee.[footnoteRef:24] The Council would only be expected to think harder if there is something specific about the job or the employee that will exacerbate the employee’s condition. It would be unreasonable to bind the employer to a duty to investigate further, in every case an employee informs him of a vulnerability. [24: Barber (n 6).]
2. 21. The common law spirit respects the privacy of an individual and prevention of discrimination in the workplace. Conclusively, the Appellant should argue that dismissing an employee based solely on assumptions and opinions would conflict with these values. If the Council dismisses every employee whom it considered to be at risk of some vulnerability, employees would potentially launch claims of unfair dismissal on the ground that their vulnerabilities are being discriminated against. An adult cannot be required to quit his work, just as he cannot be required to undergo medical treatment against his will.[footnoteRef:25] For Mr. Simons, it is his dedication to his students which motivated him to continue work. He had the full right to decide for himself what risks he will run. [25: Ibid, per Lord Rodger.]

Conclusion

It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant, that the Coxall magnitude of risk test is unsuitable due to its strict criteria which does not apply to all work-related injury cases. It is impossible to give a comprehensive formula for identifying the line between the acceptable and unacceptable in relation to the employer’s own weighing of the consequence of risks in adopting this test.

A duty is said to arise where an employer fails to take precautions as a means of combating a known danger, but also where the omission involves an absence of initiative. “The employer must keep up to date, but the court must be slow to blame him for ploughing a lone furrow.”[footnoteRef:26] In some cases the court regards a danger as so obvious that a general practice to ignore it is clearly wrong. However, the test is the same whatever the employment: there are no occupations which should be regarded as intrinsically dangerous to mental health. Hence, it cannot be plausibly argued that employers face mass litigation on the basis of workplace stress – this imposes an unduly onerous burden on employers. [26: Morris v West Hartlepool Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1956] A.C. 552.]

The principles in cases Barber, Walker, and Hartman should instead be considered to establish the correct test in determining liability. In weighing the employee’s vulnerability against his willingness to continue plus any alternative arrangements, the Council had acted reasonably and prudently by providing another means of stress alleviation. This outcome acts as a fair balance with policy considerations in mind; therefore, the appeal should be rightfully allowed.

Bibliography

Case law and statutes

1. Barber v Somerset CC [2004] UKHL 13
2. Bonser v RJB Mining (UK) Ltd [2004] IRLR 164
3. Coxall v Goodyear Great Britain Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1010
4. Daw v Intel Corporation [2007] EWCA Civ 70
5. Dickins v O2 Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1144
6. Equality Act 2010, c. 15
7. Garrett v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 395
8. Hartman v South Essex Mental Health and Community Care NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 6.
9. Hatton v Sutherland [2002] ICR 613, [34]
10. Hone v Six Continents Retail Limited [2007] I.R.L.R. 49, CA
11. Lane Group Plc v Farmiloe [2004] P.I.Q.R. P22
12. Mackintosh v Mackintosh [1886] SLR 23
13. Morris v West Hartlepool Steam Navigation Co Ltd [1956] A.C. 552
14. The Wagon Mound (No. 2) [1967] 1 A.C. 617
15. Walker v Northumberland CC [1995] I.C.R. 702
16. Withers v Perry Chain Co [1961] 1 WLR 1314
17. Yapp v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2015] I.R.L.R. 112

Books

1. Professor Anthony Dugdale, and Professor Mark Simpson QC, Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (22nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2017)
2. Salmond on Torts (10th ed) 438
3. Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence, (14th edn) c. 12

Journal Articles

1. Graeme Lockwood, Claire Henderson, and Stephen Stansfeld, ‘An assessment of employer liability for workplace stress’ IJLM 2017
2. ·Brenda Barrett, ‘Clarification of Employer’s Liability for Work-related Stress’ 31(3) ILJ 2002, 285
3. Ivacevich, J.R., Matterson, M.T. and Edward, P.R. (1985), “Who’s liable for stress on the job?” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 64 pp. 60-72

1 in every 5 Australians (about 4 million people) suffer from a mental illness. 4 million people with pain, stress, and discomfort every single day. Mental health is a very taboo topic in the media, but when it is discussed it’s portrayed in all the wrong ways. The most common mental illnesses a person experiences are depression and anxiety. The romanticisation of mental health isn’t and shouldn’t be acceptable like the way it’s treated in TV, the news, and social media. The media portrays mental health in all the wrong ways, it’s teaching teens the wrong ways to help someone with a mental illness, and it triggers those with a mental illness with the way it’s shown.

How media portrays mental health is just downright disgusting and the television series “13 Reasons Why” is a large advocate to the topic. In the show, 17 year old Hannah Baker suffers from depression, and after everything happens to her, she decides to commit suicide. She leaves 13 cassette tapes with the 13 reasons of why she killed herself behind and gets one boy to deliver them out and pass them along so everyone knows why Hannah Baker killed herself. If you have depression, it is a psychological disorder, not “you’re the reason I died”. 13 Reasons Why hasn’t properly displayed the symptoms of depression, let alone it connecting to suicide. This pain of not wanting to live is called clinical depression, and it isn’t caused by weakness but by a lack of “happy chemicals” in the brain, such as serotonin. A lack of serotonin production is a genetic factor that can be inherited and can vulneralise a person to being especially open to stress, such as the trauma of sexual assault that Hannah experienced. The TV show “13 Reasons Why” doesn’t address the topic of mental health in the way it should, by properly showing what pain and/or suffering they go through and not the blaming of others as to why they committed suicide.

The confrontation of what really goes down in someone’s mind if they have a mental illness really needs to go down. Many people around you, the girl who sits two seats down from you in math class, the awkward baker you buy your fairy bread from, and even the business-savvy teacher that no one likes, they all could possibly suffer from a mental illness. Teenagers need to start learning how to care and how to help someone that has a mental illness. However, depression becomes exceedingly challenging when mainstream news outlets, which millions of people rely on for daily updates, remain largely silent on suicides and other topics related to depression. If you went to your TV, newspaper, or radio, there wouldn’t be any reports on suicides. 65,00 children (aged 10-14) die every year from suicide and maybe 2% of them would be reported about on the news. If hearing about Mental Health on the news more often, teenagers and adults would be more familiar with the mentions of depression and suicide.

The ways mental health is displayed on social media is stomach sickening. Most apps have been getting better at the ways mental health is shown, by blocking hashtags and covering disturbing images, but on an app called Tumblr this hasn’t taken action yet. Hashtags like #thinspo are floating around in the Tumblr app, and they are disturbing. Imagine a picture of a young girl, about the age of 13, of her in a flower crown prancing around the garden, tagged #thinspo. #thispo is a tag that includes images of girls who starve themselves, that have an eating disorder, yet chose to post pictures of themselves so others get “inspiration” and copy what they do. Someone that has an eating disorder requires medical attention, a doctor, not a creepy social media app where they can “show off” and “inspire” other girls so copy what they do. This is also very much triggering for those who are on the Tumblr app who suffer from an eating disorder, or those who used to. Possibly seeing the hashtag #thinspo could cause an anxiety attack or a breakdown, giving them flashbacks of what they used to be. Social media must stop the ways they communicate with mental health.

This is why we need to stop romanticization of mental health, the media portrays mental health in all the wrong ways by using television shows, it’s teaching teens the wrong ways to help someone with a mental illness and binding the topic in the news, and it triggers those with a mental illness with the way it’s shown on social media. We can change this. Report any tags seen on social media that could be triggering. Write articles about suicides and mental health. File complaints about TV shows that are wrecking and triggering us. You can contribute to the stopping of romanticizing mental health.

The questions that we form is to collect the opinions of mental breakdown and what action can be done by parties-parties to reduce mental breakdown cases among students in Klang Valley.

Research Question 1: What are the causes of mental breakdown?

Questions that we asked:

1. Stresses brought by emotional disorder will cause mental breakdown.
2. What do you think are the main sources of stress among students?
3. What causes do you think will lead to mental breakdown among students?

Research Questions 2: How do emotional disorders lead to mental breakdown?

Questions that we asked:

1. Students should maintain equality between physical and mental illnesses.
2. Individuals who have a mental breakdown could have suicidal thoughts and behaviors.
3. Do you think emotional disorder will lead to mental breakdown? If yes, why?

Research Questions 3: How to help students overcome mental breakdown?

Questions that we asked:

1. Seeking for psychiatric treatment to overcome mental breakdown is a good idea.
2. There are other solutions for mental breakdown besides seeking for psychiatric treatment.
3. Traditional treatments (acupuncture, yoga & herbal remedies) can also help to overcome mental breakdown.
4. The government can help overcome mental breakdown among students by promoting positive mental health.
5. Mental health associations in Malaysia such as MMHA (Malaysian Mental Health Association), Minda Malaysia and Mental Health Foundation should provide help for people to rehabilitate and recover from mental illness.
6. Mass media is an effective medium for raising awareness of mental health among students.
7. What do you think parents can do to help students overcome mental breakdown?

The analysis process:

The main data collection used in this research study were questionnaires and interviews. For the part of questionnaires, we are going to use Google survey to analysis data. Personal interviews are one of the most important and valuable sources of information.

The data for this study were collected from the respondents (students) who participated in the “Mental breakdown among students in Klang Valley” through survey or questionnaire. Types of survey questions we used is open ended and closed ended questions. Open ended questions is respondents can publish their opinions, ideas, suggestions and comments. The advantage of open ended questions is respondents can explore their personal details and opinions. Closed ended questions also called structured questions or forced choice questions. Respondents have to choose their answer in the appropriate column that provided. This method was chosen for some reasons such as easy to collate, save the respondents’ time and easy to convert into a diagram.

The researcher designed an interview schedule as one of the data collection instruments for this study. The students in Klang Valley were interviewed. The interview questions were aimed at mental breakdown among students in Klang Valley. Respondents have heard about mental breakdown and they also faced mental breakdown themselves due to stress from studying and his friend had passed away unexpectedly. One of the respondent think stress will lead to mental breakdown because nowadays students have a lot of stress. On the other hand, the another respondent think that being sad and stress for long time can cause mental breakdown. So that he suggests the readers should be happy most of the time. In aspect of government, they can posting activities in school so that students are more aware about this issue as well as provide a service and national suicide hotline where people can call and talk about their problem.