Business Torts and Ethics Paper

Important Aspects of Running a Business

There are some very important aspects of running a business that you must understand as the owner. With the normal routines of running a business, the owner must be well-versed in the laws that apply to the business and how they affect business operations (Jennings, 2010). The incident that occurred to UHP's management, Donald and Alice, raised doubts about where responsibility belongs, whether it lies with UHP's management or with the driver. In this case, legal responsibility is assigned as the damages occur. How the matter is handled by the company reflects the type of business ethics UHP is managed by. But understanding the torts and ethics sheds more light on the aftermath of this case.

Torts and Their Implications

A tort is defined as a civil wrong. The three types of torts which can cause injury to another person. Torts in civil law provides the grounds for lawsuits in order for the grieving party to get compensation for injuries or damages suffered (Horsey & Rackley, 2013). The three types of torts include intentional torts, strict liability torts and negligence torts. The tort issue in this case involves Donald not acting in a way which could have made him not to cause the accident. If Donald would have followed strictly the traffic rules he could not have hit Alice. As a result this tort in the case can be referred to as case of negligence in the part of the driver (Donald). Some of the specific elements of this case include; First, Donald has a duty of care to the other road users, as a result, he should have avoided overspeeding in the road.
At the same time, Donald has been assigned the responsibility to deliver pizzas to the customers, but he used the company vehicle to visit his girlfriend. On the other hand, UHP has the responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are used in the manner in which they have been assigned. So anybody who is using the vehicle in other duties apart from the want assign should be dealt with by the company. But in this case, the company knew that Donald was using the company vehicle to visit his girlfriend, but they have not taken any step to stop him from doing that. At the same time, UHP, has the responsibility to ensure that the company vehicles are in good working condition so as to minimize cases of accidents. Alice, on the other hand has the responsibility to use the road properly as stipulated in the traffic laws. She should be taking care of the other road users so as to minimize cases of accidents in the road.

Elements to Prove Negligence

To prove negligence in this case, there are five important elements which should be considered, they include (Steele, 2014);

1. The defendant owed a duty of care


2. Defendant failed to behave in a reasonable manner


3. The plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the accident


4. The injury actually caused damage


5. The actions of the defendants or inactions were the cause of the accident

In the case, Donald owed anyone using the road the duty of care, as a result, he should have driven the vehicle with a lot of care. But when the accident was happening, Donald was driving on the wrong side of the road when he hit Alice. Alice was seriously injured as a result of this accident. UHP as a company should not be responsible for the actions of the employees who were operating out of the stipulated duties and responsibilities. When Donald was causing the accident, he was from a trip after visiting his girlfriend, which was not part of the duties he was assigned that day (Steele, 2014). Therefore, he should be made liable for the damages that he has caused to Alice. Even though Donald was under the control of the UHP, he acted out of the duties assigned, since visiting his lover was not part of the duties. Even though, the management of UHP was aware that Donald was using a company vehicle on his private duties, they had no legal duty to remind him what he is suppose to do with the vehicle, since they may even assume that Donald knows what he is expected of him as a driver of the company. As a result, Donald should be made to pay for the damages as an individual since all the basic elements required for a case to be classified as a case of negligence are meant in the case. For instance, Alice suffered injury as a result of the accident and Donald had a duty of care to the other road users.

Preventing Future Incidents

To prevent cases like this from happening in the future, UHP has come up with some ways which includes; Educating his employees on what is expected of them whenever they are operating on behalf of the company. Also, the employees should be made to know where the company would not be made liable for their actions. The management of UHP should also be taking early precaution measures if they realized that some employees are using company assets for their own private use. In fact, such employees should be punished or even dismissed if they are not willing to change. For the company vehicles, the UHP should consider installing trackers on the vehicle for the management to be in a position to know where the vehicle is at any given time. Such that if a driver drives off the route specified in the work ticket without any good reason, such a driver should be punished or penalized.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Donald as an individual has the responsibility to pay for the damages and injuries suffered by Alice. Alice has a right to claim for the damages since she was injured when she was on the right side of the road and the injury suffered was actually as a result of the accident caused by Donald (Horsey & Rackley, 2013). UHP is not liable for the payment of damages to Alice because Donald acted out of the stipulated rules or direction. He was not delivering pizzas when he caused the accident; instead, he had gone to visit his girlfriend. The management of UHP should take a step and educate his employees regarding business torts and ethics, since in this case if it was not out of Donald's unethical character, the accident may not have taken place. At the same time, UHP shows unethical character by failing to warn the driver about careless driving and unauthorized use of the company assets on private businesses.

References