Elements of Tort of Negligence and Liability

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Background
Employer’s duty
Breach of that duty
Damages or injuries occurred
Proximate cause
Employer liability
Scenario’s relationship to the elements of a negligent act
References

Background

A negligence act according to Harvey (2007) can be viewed in two perspectives which arise either as an omission of an act that would have been undertaken by a reasonable person if placed in the defendant’s position or an act conducted by the defendant that would not have been conducted at all by a reasonable person if placed in the defendant’s position. In answering the case study, the focus will dwell on the elements of negligence and liability. The scenario (case study) would be analyzed under the following sections of the tort of negligence which are; employer’s duty; employer breach of duty; damages and or injuries which resulted due to employer’s negligence; the proximate cause between the breach of duty and the damages or injuries; the types of liability for damages appropriate for this case and finally the scenario’s relationship to the elements of a negligent act (Harvey, 2007).

Employer’s duty

In determining whether the employer had a duty of care to the employee the evidence in the case has to be examined based on reasonable foreseeability and vulnerability (Alison, & Edith, 2005). Under the aspect of reasonable foreseeability, it can be noted that a reasonable person in the employer’s position would have predicted that his/her conduct of exposing private information to an employee’s ex-husband could cause the employee damages (Harvey, 2007). Under the standard behaviors which are normal in the employee /employer relationship, the employer failed to take reasonable care of maintaining the employee’s private information hence putting the employee at risk of damage. Under the vulnerability aspect, the employee was in a position of powerlessness and hence vulnerable since the employee relied on the employer to protect her/his vulnerability.

Breach of that duty

The employer in this owed a standard of care to the employee because the employer knew that the employee was divorced. A reasonable person would not have exposed the private information of the employee without being compelled by a court order since the information is of a very sensitive nature. The employer should have known better that the information could be used for any purpose including harming the employee since the employer did not know what the employee’s ex-husband intended to do with the information. There was a greater possibility that the ex-husband was to cause harm to the employee’s life and health. The harm that resulted due to the exposure of the employee’s private information was devastating since the employee’s ex-husband showed up unexpectedly at the employee’s home numerous times and continued to make harassing phone calls and Vandalism including graffiti and property damage to the employee’s home can be blamed in him. The employer has not taken any precautions to remedy the situation as far as the evidence, in this case, is concerned. It is therefore general knowledge that if the employer did not expose the private information of the employee the damages could not have occurred since the employee had been divorced for ten years and it is after this neglect of the employer which has led to this exposure of risk of damage,

Damages or injuries occurred

The employee has been receiving harassing phone calls from her ex-husband causing her to change her phone number. Vandalism including graffiti and property damage to the employee’s home has also been linked back to the ex-husband. The employee went to see a doctor concerning her health complications and was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder and an ulcer which has cause lack of sleep and her weight loss.

Proximate cause

The employer’s negligent act of giving out the employee’s private information can be sufficiently connected to the sufferings of the employee in this case. It is common sense and logical that the suffering employee’s suffering started after her ex-husband obtained her private information from her employer.

Employer liability

Employer is liable for the dames that have befallen the employee. The employer should sue for general liability for damage caused by the employer’s operations.

Scenario’s relationship to the elements of a negligent act

This scenario relate well with a negative act where employer acted contrary to what a reasonable person in employer’s position would have acted. However, this scenario does not relate to vicarious liability since we are not told of a point where the employee caused damage when working for employer.

References

Alison, C. Smith and Edith, Greene. “Conduct and Its Consequences: Attempts at Debiasing Jury Judgments” Law and Human Behavior 29.5 (2005):505- 526. Web.

Harvey, Callie. Foundations of Australian law, 2^nd ed. 2007. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!