Negligence in Business Law
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Negligence in Business Law
Introduction
The issue in contention as per the fact pattern of the case study is whether Paula Plaintiff can bring any tort claims against Cash Mart. Additionally, the fact pattern seeks to establish whether Geoffrey was negligent when hitting the ball that consequently let to Paula getting injured. Lastly, this discourse will also establish whether the claim against Geoffrey should be filed in a civil or criminal court and further explain the difference between civil and criminal court.
Tort Claims against Cash Mart
Several claims can be brought against Cash Mart by Paul. To begin with, there can be a claim of defamation and, more particularly, slander. This is because since the security guard stopped her as she was leaving the shop, there is a possibility that other people heard this, and this could lead to the reputation of Paula being ruined. In defamation suits, an injury to the reputation will arise if the reputation of a claimant was harmed by a statement made by the defendant or an agent of the defendant (Valbrune et al., 2019). It is prudent to note that apart from the fact that this statement causes reputational damage, the fact that it was not true solidifies the claim.
Tort Claims against Geoffrey
On the matter of whether George was negligent by hitting the ball, which resulted in the injury of Paula, it will be imperative for this paper to establish what Negligence is. Conformable to the definition of negligence under business law, it is “the failure to take proper care, and, as a result, that failure causes an injury to someone.” Guided by this definition, it would be possible to establish first hand that Geoffrey failed to take reasonable care, and as a result, his actions occasioned harm to Paula. However, some elements must be fulfilled for a claim of negligence to suffice as a Prima facie case. The four elements required in order to warrant a claim of negligence include Firstly, the existence of a legal duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, secondly, the breach of the duty by the defendant, thirdly, the sufferance of an injury by the plaintiff as a result and lastly, the proof that it was the defendant that caused the injury (Speiser, 2008).
In this regard, it can be stated that Geoffrey’s actions fulfilled all these elements. The first element requires the defendant to owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. In this regard, it must be established that the defendant did engage in the creation of a risky act that resulted in the plaintiff being hurt. The fact pattern alludes that Geoffrey wanting to free his driver had hit a golf ball over the wall. An action, which a reasonable man would have known that it may cause injury to another, therefore, Geoffrey owed a duty of care to Paula. Secondly, there must be a breach of duty and to determine this; the hand formula will be necessary. The formula postulates that if the probability of loss and the gravity of personal loss were more significant than the burden of taking the required precautions, then the defending party will be liable. Owing to the fact pattern, the injury suffered by Paula was more than the required burden to take precaution by Geoffrey, and as such, Geoffrey is liable. On the third issue, the sufferance of injury, occasioning body harm will suffice in this part. Paula was injured since she was unconscious after being hit by the ball. Lastly, proving that that defendant did cause the injury is also fundamental. The fact pattern establishes that indeed, Geoffrey did hit the ball that hit Paula Unconscious. It is subject to these facts that this paper agrees that Geoffrey was negligent when hitting the golf ball.
Civil and Criminal Court
If Paula files a negligence claim against Geoffrey, then she will file it under a Civil Court. In this regard, negligence falls under tort law, which is extant to resolve issues of damages sought after the conduct of an individual result in the harm of another. Given that it was the actions of Geoffrey that harmed Paula, then the matter is a civil matter that should be heard in a civil case. On the other hand, The difference between civil and criminal courts is that while the former listens to matters touching on private person issues, the latter listens to matters touching on a conflict between the state and an individual (Speiser, 2008). It is prudent to note that a person in the case of civil cases includes both natural persons and legal persons.
Conclusion
Subject to the claims stated and from the fact pattern that the claims were averred to, it can be established that Paula can bring claims to both Cash Mart for defamation and Geoffrey for negligence. Additionally, if Paula decides to bring the matter against Geoffrey before a court of law, then it will be in a civil court since it is a matter between two individuals on an issue of personal rights.
References
Speiser, S. M., Krause, C. F., & Gans, A. W. (1983). The American law of torts. St. Paul: Thomson/West.
VALBRUNE, M. I. R. A. N. D. E. D. E. A. S. S. I. S. R. E. N. E. E. C. A. R. D. E. L. L. S. U. Z. A. N. N. E. (2019). BUSINESS LAW I ESSENTIALS. S.l.: 12TH MEDIA SERVICES.