Business Tort and Ethics

Business Torts and Ethics

Nitasha Johnson

Ethics/321

February 1, 2016

Rosalie Drawbaugh

Introduction

In a world of western and modernized civilization, law is not as black and white and simple as eras before. There have been adapted responsibilities that parties are obligated to be subject to in certain situations.

In this paper, I will attempt to provide how certain parties are and are not liable as well as the rights of others. In the context of foreseeability, there is not enough information about this particular case. Also, both ethical and legal responsibilities of this case will be explained.

Intruder Liability

In the matter of owning any business, there are certain responsibilities that hold to be enforced by law. These responsibilities include and involve protecting all customers, clients, employees, as well as in this case tenants. Intrusion is a direct and intentional tort. The elaborate plan to disturb someone’s property is an action of undeniable intent.

The intruder is considered a tortfeasor and is liable for what he has done. First, the intruder committed a breaking-and entering (B and E), which alarmed Sharon prompted her to protect her person and her property. Then, she attracted the attention of another person, Darryl which immediately put him into the same direct danger as they both physically confronted the intruder. Ultimately, the actions of the intruder caused injury to both Sharon’s and Darryl’s person as well as well as violated t private property when he forced the glass door. All actions made by the intruder were both of will and knowledge which is important to understand for the basis of intent. The intruder is subject to recovery of dollar damages by Sharon and Darryl most likely will be persecuted by law for damages to injury and property damage since there a number of crimes he can be accused of, for example assault and battery and breaking and entering as aforementioned.

Legal Responsibilities to Tenants and Employees

        There are basic obligations owed by business owners and landowners to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition. In reference to landlord-tenant relationships, the law of negligence imposes a duty to protect its tenants from foreseeable assaults. This is where the test of foreseeability applies, but there is not information to understand whether or not there is probable concern for criminal activity on the premises of University Heights Apartments. Since there is no evidence of foreseeability, the courts would rule this case as one of strict liability. As defined by Reed (2013), “Strict-liability imposes legal responsibility for injury even though a liable party neither intentionally nor negligently causes injury.”