The workplace being an environment inhabited by human beings with varied personalities and emotions connotes that conflicts are but inevitable circumstances. A tort is a personal off beam or grievance for which a lawful remedy can be sought after through the courts. By means of tort law, injured individuals can seek damages for a range of wrongs varying from undemanding physical attack to medical mismanagement to perverse doings that serves as basis for damage through defective products or exposure to deadly matters.
Even though several torts are remedied in the course of proper court-based arbitration, such claims however are progressively being handled through unconventional disagreement resolution systems such as pacification, negotiation, and intercession all for the light of reconciliation. In essence, workplace flexibility to date has commonly been implemented in stages. Due to the immediate actions made in every false move, employees and business tycoons are now becoming more alert in avoiding these violations so as to shun from court orders (Glannon, 2005).
Characteristically, the first three stages are (1) small-scale, or ad hoc, experiments, (2) expanding the experience more broadly to other parts of the organization or increasing the number of options, and (3) integrating the initiatives into human resource management policies. Policy by itself, nonetheless, does not modify culture. Many of the firms that have gotten to the policy stage find themselves in the pedestal of making the workplace a worry-free environment. Analysis
The demands for tort have come principally from insurance companies, businesses, and politicians, who charge that the current tort system is inefficient, ineffective, and unfair. Critics contend that frivolous court cases marsh down the system. A quantity of the suits gives in huge rewards for some plaintiffs, thus other victims with equally reasonable claims are denied any payment. Liability for manufactured goods and medical malpractice are often cited as predominantly difficult (Green & Reibstein, 1992).
The peril of product accountability claims amplifies costs—and at the same time buyer costs—and stops the development of new products which cause the flow of the market run in a slower speed. Common Torts in the Workplace In a workplace environment, the common grounds for acquiring tort actions revolve on breach of contracts—either on the basis of goods and services—or on physical injury cases. Torts however, vary on two categories—intentional or unintentional—which then define the level of penalty for the person responsible for the wrongdoing (Glannon, 2005).
One of the most committed torts in the workplace is the case of an employer firing an employee despite the presence of a written agreement. Forgery is also one. But the most blatant issue involves physical injuries. Hence the most familiar case lurks in plagiarism which is basically commenced by tight competitions between employees or on business entities that are under the same line. Unreasonable disclosure of embarrassing private facts Any person who divulges private information without the consent of the personality is considered as a legal matter which if proven right by the plaintiff, will be heavily penalized in court.
This is common in the workplace most especially when someone—intentionally or unintentionally—is erred against someone. Having explored the rationale and potential benefits of a competency approach to job performance measurement, participants in the meetings on competency assessment took up the practical question of how to develop measures that permit interpretation of performance scores as representing degrees of job competency or job mastery. Intrusion upon seclusion
This form of tort is defined as an intentional intrusion—physically or otherwise—aimed to a certain benefit of the intruder (Green & Reibstein, 1992). The common scenario for this in a workplace would be a worker who sneaks in meetings of the board members or the committee either for personal gain i the specified job or to give the information to competing business entities. Spying, in layman’s term, is a concern among company owners since the competition in the market requires innovation and if these ideas are stolen, then they will not be able to reach the market in their initial plan of operation.
Portrayal in a false light This is also associated with loss or destruction of property and defamation. In this case, a person is trying tor ruin another person’s reputation for any form of basis. The legal action counterpart to this would be libel (Glannon, 2005). The person defamed shall sue the person responsible for such action and will be heavily penalized. This normally happens when two workers compete for a promotion causing them to take a part of this rugged situation just to please the boss and smear the name of the rival.
Appropriation for commercial purposes Companies that hold celebrities as endorsers for their products normally keep this legal issue in mind. There have been several cases where a file of a certain company is reused by other business entities without proper notice from the property owner. Conceivably, intellectual property rights touch this subject. In this case, the legal action may be filed not only by the company that owns the property—photos or advertising materials per se—but also the personality who appears in the advertisement.
Envy and cost-cutting measures are the frequent reasons why violators abuse this rule (Glannon, 2005). Negligence and malpractice Insurance companies are perceivably considered as the life-savers of the society when it comes to questionable goods and services by the producers or practitioners (Green & Reibstein, 1992). Negligence is oftentimes the cause of strain of connection between the buyer and the seller. A buyer who finds out that an item caused health problems or does not function well as expected; the whole company of the manufacturer would be jeopardized.
A nurse who gives the wrong medicine to the patient will end up in jail and the doctor assigned to the patient will also be held liable. Such scenario is but a consistent error by humans in any field. This is the reason why torts are important in any company, not only to preserve the trust given to them by their consumers but to stay away from legal actions. (Bate, Khan, & Pye, 2000) Conclusions and further remarks If fraud is a concern, tort suits, theft laws, and escrow accounts are all available to deal with it.
Employers have successfully argued that state discrimination or workers' compensation laws provide an exclusive state remedy for injuries relating to harassment. Plaintiffs cannot obtain a double recovery for the same injuries, but they may be able to avoid the cap on compensatory and punitive damages imposed under the federal law. Tort damages may be particularly appropriate when highly offensive or outrageous physical contact is involved. References Bate, P. , Khan, R., & Pye, A. (2000).
Towards a Culturally Sensitive Approach to Organization Structuring: Where Organization Design Meets Organization Development. Organization Science, 11(2), 198. Glannon, J. W. (2005). The Law Of Torts: Examples And Explanations (3 ed. ). New York: Aspen Publishers. Green, R. M. , & Reibstein, R. J. (1992). Employer's Guide to Workplace Torts: Negligent Hiring, Fraud, Defamation, and Other Emerging Areas of Employer Liability. Washington, D. C. : BNA Books.