Contract and company law were created to control and monitor the commercial activities. These laws due to the increased public scrutiny, for long term survival, companies have engaged in increasing more dependence on the social political support. They therefore change their roles, goals and activities just to satisfy the expectation of the society. They have also had to align their organization values with society value and beliefs. This will mean interacting their structures, cultures and policies with those of the entire society.
Tort is a twisted action that is not accepted by the law. It is a civil wrong and thus the claimant calls for compensation for the damages and losses he has suffered. However, this compensation is not agreed upon by the claimant but by a court ruling that will measure what the damages are valued at. According to the provisions of the common UK law, its break will lead to a tort arising. Occurrence of tort is not breaching a contract.
This is because its duties are imposed by the law, the duty is owed to the whole society, parties in affected do not need to maintain an action and its damages are always not money unlike the contract whose duties are fixed by parties and owned by a specific person, the parties in contract can sue each other and its damages are either liquidated or not in money form . Tort litigation Tort litigation is the judicial lawsuit proceedings in a court where one injured individual brings another person believed to have caused the injury on him so he can be compensated for the damages inflicted.
Therefore, it allows a person to recover money due to intentional or negligent injuries caused on him. A tort law functions by monitoring that individuals are responsible and legally behaved. Misfortunes occur at some point in ones life and a cost to recover from it is needed. The process of shifting the recovery costs to another person who is cause of the misfortune is termed as the tort litigation. Tort description in UK In UK, tort can be strict liability, negligent or intentional. Strict liability summarizes what a human being can be compensated for in using the restaurants products.
The affected person can ask for damages recovery after drinking unsafe water, the restaurant offering him low quality food service and animals in the restaurant biting him. A negligent tort could be with the premises facilities like sitting on a chair that had broken and the management knew about it. The restaurant can face intentional tort charges if it defames or assaults a client. However, other acts may cause no actual damages but the wrongful acts are actionable such as Libel and trespass to land. It supports the provision of every right as having a remedy.
An action to qualify to being a tort ought to have; an actual loss of property or damages to the person, presence of direct link between the injury and legal duties and the breach of the duty to support it. Thus, an act must be committed, legal damage occurrence and the damage itself attracts a give-take monetary value action. The Stanley restaurant in UK, should understand that some acts can contain both contract breach and a tort. An agreement to cook a dinner which results in an injury may be through burning someone else as a result of lack of skill and negligence by the chef is an example.
The injured party agreed into a successful dinner cooking therefore can sue for breach of contract and tort of negligence. Other actions fall in the category of crime and tort for example the restaurant’s driver not driving carefully thus causes an accident and injures a certain person. The police in solving the crime can sue for dangerous driving and the injured person can be compensated for the harm under negligence tort. Precautions on avoiding tort litigation The management of Stanley restaurant should know who is liable for the tort.
The employer has a lot of control over the employee and furthermore he has the compensation money more than the employee. Its cooks, chefs, cleaners, supervisors, guards, volunteers, members of board and its other entire employed staff are not liable for their actions as long as they were working within the scope of their duty. However, the employer should only be liable if the employee’s actions are what he is employed to do, the actions are of purpose to serve the employer, and it occurs within the authorized time and specific limits are observed. An intentional force by an employee on the other hand is not covered by the boss.
A supervisor would personally pay the damages for failing to fire an incompetent worker, failure to give a notice such as on wet floors have a “slippery floor be careful” notice and for not offering sufficient training to the staff . He also takes charges if personally participated knowingly in any action directed to injure a person. The plan would provide consultations and guidance before the tort case leaks out. The law firm would help solve the emergence of unfair competition with the restaurants competitors, defamation of people and fraud related actions.
It will provide the guidance on product labels to ensure safety of their customers from the consumer protection seals. It is designed to restore the business operation of the restaurant incases of emergencies, disasters and a possibility of altering the location. The management should develop a physical access to the restaurants restricted confidential housed information incases of an emergency. It is advisable to list the specific critical roles of the staff identified in the tort litigation. The management has to take part in the precautions also; they have to implement the procedures for testing the contingency plan drawn.
The test scenarios, objectives, participants and roles have to be listed. In order to be effective and efficient the plan has to recognize the Stanley restaurant business organization structures and policies. It has to be reviewed and updated with relevant changes every moment they are altered. Dealing with a tort suit Evil motive arises when an action is spiked by anger. It is not relevant in deciding a liability tort. Just as innocence cannot be used for defending a wrong act, then an evil motive would not turn something lawful into unlawful. Malice will be relevant in tort if there is a malicious prosecution and falsehood.
They occur when an innocent party can be maliciously prosecuted and therefore take an action against the prosecuting officer and a lie created to damage the reputation of another causing financial loss is actionable respectively . Every business is given the right to defend itself and the Stanley restaurant is not exceptional therefore it can look for ways to defend itself incase of a tort. It can argue that the plaintiff knew of the risk involved and decided to run in it voluntarily but where there is knowledge of risk and plaintiff acts out of moral duty to protect life, the defense does not apply.
There could also be occurrence of extra ordinary nature that could not have been foreseen such as earthquake, which is a natural cause and can not be avoided, destroying the restaurant and injuring people. In addition, every human being is entitled to defend herself, her property and her relatives. The reasonableness of the force used depends on the necessity for defense and means used to do so with regards to the harm most likely to be suffered. The restaurant can secure its property may be through use of fierce dogs or even broken glass on the wall.
The statutory body can be a defense in cases where it authorizes the commission of what would be termed as a tort, that the injured is remediless. However, if proper implementation of such powers is not used well, the defendant would be personally liable. The court tries to determine if the action was committed reasonably or not. There could be a mistake in it especially the malicious prosecution. So actions are termed as necessary at that point of situation for example, pulling down the next building next to the restaurant in order to stop a spread of the fire is necessary and it is a defense.
Tort handling will require the services of a lawyer as a negotiator. However lawyers negotiate using different formulas and may save or loose the case. Adversarial negotiation involves the lawyer misleading, using threat, not revealing other information, demanding high amount and even using few concessions. The problem solver lawyers will always take point of the interest and not the positions they hold, look at the problem not the person having tit, use the objective informative criteria and trade for mutual gains. Conclusion
For the tort litigation contingency to be a success in the Stanley restaurant, the stakeholders and employees have to be continually educated on the reformed procedures. The plan should anticipate losses and disasters, be planned early, all regulations governing it be indicated and followed, update and match all the plans with the business operating actions. The organization should also create as many plans to ensure keep of track and maintain its integrity . Public nuisance is an act interfering with enjoyment of a right every human being of that location is entitled to such as free air.
Therefore, unless proven that a person created a civil action that caused an injury beyond that suffered by every other individual then he can start an action and prove the damages directly suffered. Private nuisance eon the other hand is unreasonable usage manner of own property but it affects another person comfortable use of his property. They could include loud music, falling objects, branches and trees extending to the neighbors homestead or even emission or gasses. It is a civil offence and remedies to the damages must be inflicted.
These are the nuisances the Stanley restaurant should avoid. References Emery A. & Watson M. (2004) “Organizations and environmental crime: legal and economic perspectives. ” Managerial Auditing Journal: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Pp1-14 Fairgrieve D. & Howells G. (2007) “Is product liability still a global problem? ” Managerial Law: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Pp 2 http://www. techassure. com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/contingency_plan_example. pdf Stock well N. (2007) “Tort Law” Pearson Education Limited: UK