Criminal Laws and Law of Tort - Article Example

TORT LAW A tort law has several aspects that make it different from criminal law. Criminal laws are prosecuted on behalf of society. All fines paid will go directly to the government. In regard to tort law, the injured party will sue the aggressor for causing the injuries and any damages awarded will go directly to the injured party. Another difference between the two types of laws is that in criminal proceedings, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to obtain success in winning a case. In a tort case, success can be achieved by providing proof based on a preponderance of evidence. A conviction in criminal court does not necessarily mean automatic compensation under tort law. (King, 2006) The following cases would explain the position of Duty, Breach of Duty, Causation, Remotness, Damages or Remedies under the aspects of Tort Law. Due to some recent issues surrounding plant security, Bug has to address some concerns both with a focus on short and long-term solutions. With any organization the first priority should be to protect its assets. This must start with ensuring the safety of its workforce on company property. Since Bug has at least two full shifts, the lighting and security for night shift workers must be addressed. The company must address the parking lot lighting situation by having all lights repaired immediately. Management should also incorporate some type of safety process that discourages individuals from leaving the plant alone. If security is present, then the rounds made by the guards should be increased, even if the company has to purchase some type of motorized vehicle. (King, 2006) In the following scenario, Bug can be held liable based on the category of Intentional Tort. Both the vendor and employees who were victimized can claim reasonable apprehension of imminent harm because Bug knew its lighting and security process were not fully operational. This fear can lead to trauma or mental anguish by the victims, which could have lasting effects on the individuals. Although the company cannot eliminate crime, it can greatly reduce it by ensuring that adequate resources are invested in maintaining security; along with providing a safe work environment. Bugs' potential defense probably would begin with a stance of impossibility. No entity can eliminate crime, so the company cannot be held liable for all incidents of violence. Another stance may be that the company made a mistake in underestimating the level of increased crime within the city; thus failing to make improvements within the plant security. Does the company have a safe place to hold visitors, and how often does security escort employees to their vehicles' Having processes in place such as these can assist with providing documentation of efforts by the organization to offset security risks. (King, 2006) The Bug Company manufactured some wiretaps without insulators to save on production cost. The company later adds insulators to the newer version that they produced which Bug's duty of care is to produce safe equipment. The original version caused harm to someone and Bug should be responsible. (King, 2006) The police department purchased the original version of these wiretaps that short-circuited and injured Officer Sally DoGood. Sally could pursue the Negligence tort against Bug for not producing safe equipment and receive punitive and actual damages for their Intentional tortious conduct that resulted in her being injured. Strict Liability is another tort that Sally can pursue because it was not her fault that the wiretaps short-circuited. The police department can also be held responsible for issuing the old equipment to Sally that caused her to be injured on the job. Manufactures, designs, and sells electronic recording devices in the United States. They also manufacture products internationally. Demands for their products are increasing in the International sales markets. Bug is currently making decisions to expand the sales department to market products internationally. (King, 2006) For beginners lets discuss the various types of legal protections that are necessary for Bug to consider expanding sales. In 1967 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was established to administer the following treaties (WIPO). Intellectual Property (IP) bundles exclusive rights of a company's inventions or ideas of the human mind. IP laws contribute to economic growth because they allow companies the freedom to share their creations without fear of being copied. Industries that rely on IP protections produce 72% more value than non-IP industries. The IP concept helps to strengthen correlation between foreign countries and the United States. (Lamb, 2004) Bug wants to sell its products over the Internet. They are concerned about privacy, security and infringement. Bug is also interested in buying a domain name, but the one they want is already taken. It would be wise for Bug to expand its business by selling its products over the Internet. In 2008, the Internet is the way to go. It has become a necessity for many people to aid them in their everyday lives. Of course, someone can live without the Internet, but there would be very little interaction with other people but the majority uses the Internet. A law was developed to help encourage inventors to invent because the law protected the inventions from infringement. This law is known as the Federal Patent Statute developed in 1952. A patent application can be filed in Washington at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Bug can rely on the patenting system to relieve their concerns about security and infringement. If someone decides to use Bug's patent without authorization, Bug can sue. Addressing the issue of the domain name, Bug must have a domain name in order to conduct business online. The first step for Bug is to determine if the name they want is already taken, which it is. In the situation of BUG, Inc. employee Walter and WIRETAP employee Steve, Walter has committed some torts. Under tort law, Walter committed assault towards Steve. Although Walter never physically assaulted Steve, under tort law, by threatening to hurt Steve and Steve fearing that harm was imminent if he withheld the information, he assaulted Steve. Walter is also guilty of false imprisonment. Although merchant protection statutes have been established that permits businesses to stop, deter, and investigate suspected shoplifters under certain circumstances. The business must have reasonable grounds for suspicion, detained for a reasonable amount of time, and the investigations must be conducted in a reasonable manner. Walter would probably not be protected under this statute due to the length of time he imprisoned Steve and his actions toward Steve during that imprisonment. (Lamb, 2004) References: King, H; (2006); Tort Law Principals; Auckland: HBT & Brooks Ltd Lamb, D; (2004); Cult to Culture: The Development of Civilization; Wellington: National Book Trust Read More