The Law of Torts for Protection the Interests of the Other People Essay

The Law of Torts for Protection the Interests of the Other People - Essay Example The issue in this research is that Mark dug a certain portion of his yard to build a wall around his front garden. During the process, heavy rain disturbed him and he did not bother to cover the exposed area and a heap of rubble falls into the street. Dick is hit by some stones and is injured on his leg. On the other hand, Laura, Dick’s mother suffers a nervous breakdown after seeing Dick’s injuries. Tony who was riding his scooter down the street fell and broke his arm when hit by some rubble from the open pit. Jacque who was on the other side of the road assisted Tony after the accident and she was later infected with a rare form of blood poisoning which is caused by bacteria found in the soil. From the above scenario, it can be observed Dick, Laura, Tony, and Jacque have rights to file a lawsuit against Mark who is liable for the tort of negligence. In order for the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned scenarios to win their cases, they must prove to the courts that Mar k owed them a duty care and that duty of care has been breached. In order to prove the existence of daycare duty, some conditions should prevail as illustrated by the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman. These conditions include foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability. The occupiers also owe a duty care to ensure that all people who enter their premises are not injured even the trespassers. However, duty care does not always exist hence these factors need to be taken into account. Broadly speaking, some situations are foreseeable to any reasonable person before they embark on a particular action. Â  From the above case scenario, it can be noted that Mark was not reason enough to leave the excavated area unprotected. As illustrated in the case of Hackshaw v. Shaw, occupiers have a duty care to all who pass through their places even trespassers. It can also be seen that it was foreseeable that a storm was building and Mark was not likely to complete his job on time. The element of proximity also exists where Mark excavated an area that was close to the road. As such, it is advisable that Dick, Laura, Tony, and Jacque take legal action against Mark since they can prove to the court that Mark’s actions have been negligent and have led to their injuries. Reasonable people usually do not behave the way Mark acted. Â  

Ethical Issues and Application of Ethics Theories Case Study

Ethical Issues and Application of Ethics Theories - Case Study Example Similarly, Carly also wants to show the work of young artists in his museum as it was a success in a museum in London. This will affect both Z museum and Carly as a successful show will increase the rating of the museum and will help them become a popular place. Similarly, Carly will also benefit by controlling a successful museum as his standing and worth will increase. The other stakeholder in the case is Jeremy Q. Jeremy Q is going donate a good sum of money to museum in an attempt to increase recognition in the corporate sector, which will give him chance to attract a corporate sponsorship for his collections. So, he may also be affected greatly by the success of the show. M's will also not remain unaffected by the show. They have been forced to become a stakeholder by the persuasion of Jeremy and Carly. Both have offered them to use their services in future if they sponsor the show. This means future financial gains for M's if show becomes a success. Similarly, young painters wi ll get exposure and there may be a change that the success of their painting in the show may lead them to fame. These were some of the stakeholders and how ethical or operational issues impact these stakeholders. According to Manuel Velasquez, Teleology theory states that what make an action good or wrong are the consequences of that action. For example, a "right action" always leads to right consequences and vice versa. In our case, all the stakeholders were working for their own benefits. For example, Jeremy wanted publicity and corporate sponsorship for his collections. Similarly M's wanted more business opportunities in the future and Carly wanted to enhance his reputation. In surge of their own benefits, all the stakeholders were working for the success of Z museum. However, according to Teleology theory, this self-interest is justified as long as the final target is achieved, that is the success of Z museum. However, if the Museum fails to put on a great show, the actions of these stakeholders would be classified as unethical or wrong actions, as suggested by this theory. Similarly, Manuel Velasquez defines Deontology theory as "it is not the consequences but the motivation behind thes e actions that determine the actions right or wrong". In our case everyone was lacking the real spirit and working for their self-interest or personal success (2009). Hence, their actions, according to deontology theory were wrong as they were not working for the success of the Museum, which was the main target, but instead everyone was seeking growth in his own personal stature. However, one cannot classify this behavior as truly negative behavior. According to Shaw, egoism theory sets the personal achievement and pleasure as the main goal for one's actions. The behavior of the stakeholders can be justified if their actions are viewed in the light of this theory. The director was working for his growth in reputation, Jeremy for his publicity, M's for future business. All of them were indirectly putting their efforts for the success of the show at the Museum. Their actions are justified by the egoism and Teleogical theories but, their actions cannot be considered as totally ethical under deontology (2005). In order to analyze the costs and benefits of these actions to Z