Business Law

Business Law

Applicable Tort Claims

More often than not, torts make the base of cases presented in court. Many individuals suffer civil wrongs in the hands of employees in institutions and business environments. In the case of Patty, who was busy looking for a commodity she was in need of, she appears to be a victim of multiple wrongs in the hands of the security guard who accuses her of shoplifting, does not take any action to confirm his allegations by conducting a search, and, locks her up without explanation.

Falsity is the first claim patty can make against the shopping establishment. It occurs when an individual suffers damages as a result of incorrect and untruthful statements. The accuracy of the actions depends on evidence which might prove that he or she already knew the wrongness in her words or actions or, were not careful enough to ascertain. In this case, Cash Marts’ security guard did not attempt to confirm his suspicions by searching. Instead, he rushed her to a single room and locked her in without explanation. This actions from the Cash Mart’s employee caused her to miss her appointment, which may have hurt her career in one way or another.

Defamation is another claim at Patty’s disposal. If it comes to the worst and news gets out that Patty is under investigation for suspected shoplifting, things could get messy for her at a personal level, and in her career. However, the allegations made against her hold no basis as the manager lets her go after some time. Nevertheless, she is late for her appointment courtesy of wrongful and hurtful statements made by the security guard. She could also file the case with claims of false imprisonment knowing fully well that the worker did not confirm his allegations but went ahead and locked Patty Plaintiff in a secluded area causing her emotional distress with the harsh threats of imprisonment.

Elements of Negligence

Gerry in his golfing activities hits the ball which lands on Patty’s head knocking her unconscious. It is without a doubt that the golfer’s actions have a direct relationship with the misfortunes of the victim. She found herself in a hospital with unimaginable bills to pay and still in pain from the injuries she sustained. This reasoning falls in line with the But-for approach that forms the foundation of probable cause. Gerry is neglectful as his property is adjacent to a public area full of people.

Using the substantial factor as the method to understand the incident, it is imperative to determine whether the defendant doing was the core factor leading to the damages caused to the plaintiff. Patty was minding her business rushing to see if she could salvage her reputation as a result of the missed appointment. If in that day, say, for instance, Gerry decided not to engage in his sporting activities, then it is unquestionable that the complainant would arrive at her destination safely and, would not have expenses to take care of in terms of hospital bills. Therefore, Gerry’s choice to hit the ball with too much excitement, courtesy of his new driver, is an element of negligence. More so, the incidence that ensued after hitting the ball was foreseeable as they fall under the scope of risks of the action. It was his responsibility to take sufficient measures. The moment he decided to hit that ball, it became among the probable events that it would know someone’s head, or, destroy someone’s property (Actual and Proximate Cause Overview :: Justia, 2019

Right to Privacy

Employees’ activities within the premises of a business organization remain significantly unprotected by the laws that determine the right to privacy. Patty’s choice to use company resources for personal undertakings, with full knowledge of the prohibition of such, is an obvious case of workplace misconduct. She has no right to privacy. The email system is part of the organization’ structure, and employers have exclusive rights to conduct random searches, physically or throughout the network to ensure that company time, data and equipment are only in use for the benefit of the firm.

It is unfortunate that Patty sent the email fully aware that the system is in constant monitoring. It may mean that she did not have a care, whatsoever, of the consequences that may occur if her actions became public, or that she was hoping that her mischief would stay hidden. As an employee of a big corporation, it is without a doubt that Patty signed contracts agreeing to conduct herself within the expectations of the company; data is always a priority for such businesses. She, therefore, subscribed to all the rules, regulations and policies applicable to any situation that may arise in the company.

Networking equipment is among the most misappropriated assets in a business (Employee misuse of company assets endangers business, 2019). In light of this, it is understandable why the supervisor, Barry, who was always on alert, found it easy to discover Patty’s violation of the policy of permissive use. Most of the time, these violations lead to high costs in damages. The company, therefore, had the legal right to organize investigations without the knowledge of the employees, in the quest to protect the organization and to avoid liabilities.



Social Media Posts

Social media rules and regulations exist in a companies’ set of policies. It is against these guidelines for people to share with the public content that may cripple the corporation’s undertakings. Employees may not disclose information that may strip the firm of competitive advantage, or, destroy its reputation in whatsoever imaginable way. Deciding to go public by posting disparaging remarks about her employer and the entire company was wrong. It makes matters worse for Patty because she was at fault by using company equipment for personal gain. The supervisor chose, and it was only a matter of time before the incident was behind her.

Social media has millions of users on the multiple platforms available publicly. Patty posted on these platforms to seek attention and sympathy from people. Firstly, No person on social media would have the professional authority or need to come to her rescue. Secondly, her claim was baseless, and she was more likely on a vendetta to shame the company and the boss, rather than in the pursuit of a solution. This reasoning brings into focus her disregard for rules and displays irrationality and immaturity in her part. She does not like solving problems as she only rushed on social media, not seeking help, but to embarrass Acme’s Executive and, the corporation in general.

The company, thus, has the legal right to fire Patty on several accounts such as defamation. Firstly, it is more likely that all the statements she made on the media were false, designed to get back at the supervisor, the manager, and the establishment. Secondly, tainting Acme would mean the loss of trust with its consumers and business partners. This destroyed reputation may cause a drop in revenue or loss of investors. On these grounds, the company possess all rights legally to distant itself and, also, claim compensation (Twomey, Jennings & Greene, 2016).



Actual and Proximate Cause Overview :: Justia. (2019). Retrieved from

Employee misuse of company assets endangers business. (2019). Retrieved from

Twomey, D. P., Jennings, M. M., & Greene, S. M. (2016). Anderson’s Business Law and the Legal Environment, Comprehensive Volume. Nelson Education.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?

Custom Essay writing Service