Every business organization has the obligation to all their
customers and stakeholders at large.
Most of the cases filed as Tort are more expensive compared to the
controlled and monitored events and backlogs of the organization. As to define the word Tort, an individual can
be sued by the plaintiff resulting to a civil ruling as to grant the plaintiff
the punitive damages incurred by the event.
Likewise, Tort is classified into four basic categories as to Intent,
Recklessness, Negligence, and Strict liability.
1 Intent-is the desire of an individual to cause certain
consequences from the event being executed before-hand. The logical argument will focus more as to
how evident the intent of the defendant in executing the incident. Investigative arguments must be intensely
logical in order to measure the real intentions of the defendant. In addition, in investigating the intent of
the case the defendant will have the full obligation to reveal the different
angle of the case that is subject for logical analysis. Cross examination is the most effective data
collection from the defendant allowing logic and reasoning to let the defendant
reveal the real intent of the case.
2. Recklessness- is a conscious indifference to a known and
substantial risk of harm created by one’s behavior. In the case of recklessness, a thorough
comparison between the standard set by the complainant and the execution of the
reckless act done by the plaintiff. On the contrary, the information awareness
is also another angle to be considered as to how well inform the defendant is, prior
to the event is being done. Commonly,
the intensity of damages being experienced by the complainant is actually the
result of the insufficiency of information driven before the plaintiff
committed the act. Further argument on
the aspect of organizational negligence can be filed as to how the organization
is concern in informing their stakeholders regarding the legal protocols inside
the organization
3. Negligence- is a failure to use reasonable care, with
harm to another party occurring as a result.
Furthermore, negligent conduct falls below the level necessary to
protect others against unreasonable risks of harm (Mallor et al. 2010). If
the plaintiff acted a criminal offense that is with no intentions to commit the
crime but the act on hand is subject to accidental circumstance, then the case
of negligence will follow upon acting the negligent act. The crime committed by
the plaintiff is not the accident but the negligent act committed before the
accident.
4. Strict Liability- is defined in a short term as the
“liability without fault”. Recklessness,
negligence, or any other kind of wrongfulness is not the main issue of strict
liability. Instead, strict liability is
the automatic liability of the plaintiff regardless of the knowledge being
acquired before the crime is committed.
With this regard, the complainant has the upper hand in defending the
argument knowing that regardless of the knowledge of the plaintiff the case is
favoring to the complainant’s plea.
To exemplify, the case of Mathias v. Accor Economy
Lodging Inc. 347 F.3d 672 (7th
Cir. 2003) would be the exact case example as to the subject of
punitive damages is being emphasized in the case. Burl & Desire Mathias are both visitors
of Accor Economy Lodging, after they inquired the front desk and finally rented
a room for the night, B&D Mathias found out that in the bedroom a lot of
bugs are present forcing the complainant to call the hotel receptionist for room
service. Upon the discovery, the room is
full of bugs which allow the couple to finally decide to file a legal complaint
against the Accor Economy Lodging Inc. As
to the legal proceedings, the charges are filed with punitive damages resulting
in penalizing Accor Economy Lodging, Inc. with a payment to the damages
amounting to $20,000. The recklessness
and negligence of Accor Economy Lodging, Inc. drives the complainant to have a
solid legal ground to win the case.
Comments