Any employer is responsible for taking all steps for safeguarding the work place environment. This duty is in context with the mental and physical health (Mahood, 2007). If there is breaching of this responsibility, and the breach resulted to be detrimental, then the employee can sue for the damages caused as a result of the negligence of employer. In this case scenario, the manager had been negligent to conduct further inquiry on the machine prior to its implementation and use. The company can be sued in this context (Steele, 2008).
In this context, it can be stated that though less, Alan had some chance of survival that was reduced by the doctor as he was given inappropriate amount of morphine. And hence, Fiona, Alan’s wife can consider suing the doctor. However, the decision will still be in the authority and perception of the jurisdiction.
In the case of Gary, he had been showing huge concern regarding specific financial issues. A few days ago, Gary had an informal meeting with Hannah at a local public house, who also turned out to be a bank manager. The meeting was accidental as Gary was just having some drinks with his friends. As the financial condition of Gary was already weak, he was considering to invest an amount of 20,000 dollars that he inherited, at the company of Chancers. He discussed this with Hannah and she made a random suggestion that the investment will turn out to be worthy. Hannah further stated that she did not acknowledge the financial structure of Chancers precisely, and recommended to make an appointment at the back for ensuring good quality enquiry. Considering the partial advice of Hannah, Gary made the investment in Chancers without having further conversation about Hannah’s enquiry. As a matter of fact, Chancers was facing major financial difficulties and since then, trade is ceased, as a result of which, Gary ended up losing his money. Can Hannah be sued under lawful consideration?
In order to advice Gary on his case, the difference between merely passing information and giving advice has to be understood. Where an advisor passes any information merely to a person, instead of considering to proffer advice, the advisor does not hold any liability (Matthews, 2009). This is because no assumption is taken up for the responsibility and relying upon such conduit cannot be considered reasonable. Any advice, according to the law will have a value judgment or comment, regarding the applicability for any financial decision. On the other hand, advice can be considered as the result of process to select where there is an involvement of value judgment (Palumbo, 2010). Hannah did not provide any information that had the tendency of influencing the decision of recipient. In fact, her advice to Gary was to see her at the bank so she could go through the financial information of the company in which Gary is willing to invest. Gary did not give any chance to Hannah for inquiring the pure facts about the business based on which she would have given a reasonable and applicable advice to Gary. There can be difficulty faced to divide the line between the two aspects. In addition, if there is only a provision of information, there must be accuracy of the information, otherwise, the advisor will be held liable for the conduct of negligence (Channing, 2008).
Hence, as in the case of Gary, Hannah suggested to enquire further ahead before making the decision. However, before the inquiry, Gary had made the call for the investment of 20,000 dollars at Chancers. Gary held no legal position for suing Hannah as there was lack of seriousness to inquire from the side of Gary. Moreover, the conversation was extremely informal and neither Gary nor Hannah would have made a viable decision under the influence of alcohol, probably.
This paper has focused on the case of Butlers Machines Ltd. from the perspective of three different employees, namely, Gary, Emily and Alan. Related to the same setting, Alan and Emily faced severe consequences due to negligence. Alan ended up dying at the hospital after an inappropriate dose of morphine that was negligence from the doctor. However, Alan was already in a critical position when he was brought to the hospital and would have died anyways. Hence, Alan’s wife cannot sue the doctor but can sue the company in which Alan was working. Emily managed to pull out Alan from the machine and faced a nervous breakdown due to the horrific event. Emily has the right to sue the company as the company failed in maintaining her mental health. Finally, in the case of Gary, he would not be able to sue Hannah due to the difference between merely passing information and giving advice. These key points have been elaborated in the entire paper to support the claims made.
英国论文代写Essay Times网站平台是一家论文代写信誉高的留学教育机构，其中有24小时专业客服为留学们提供随时在线咨询服务，还有一些英国代写、硕士论文代写、paper代写、essay代写、report代写、assignment代写等论文服务，英国论文时Essay Times会以专业认真的教学态度来帮助留学生们完成学业目标，从而顺利拿到专属自己的学位证书！而且以上提供的论文范文，未经授权任何人不得私自转发，如有发现将依法追究其法律责任！