Ricky Gervais & Co Ltd - Case Study Example

http www.swab.co.uk accessed 23/04/09 (http www.cameraclean.co.uk/ accessed 23/04/09. http www.infolaw.co.uk/ accessed 23/04/09 http://www.new-law-journal.co.uk/ accessed 23/04/09 http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/resources.php tried to access 23/04/09 http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/ accessed 23/04/09 http://www.proflist.com accessed 23/04/09 http://www.courtservice.gov.uk accessed 23/04/09 http://www.dca.gov.uk (accessed 23/04/09) http://www.lawcom.gov.uk accessed 23/04/09) In this particular case, Geoff looses an eye as a result of a practical joke by his co-worker which has been directed at his neighbour. Peters, an employee at Ricky Gervais & Co Ltd is playing a practical joke on his neighbour with a catapult loaded with a scissors while at work. Unfortunately, upon release of the catapult, Geoff another employee, is badly injured in the process and this results in him loosing his eye and ultimately his lovely job as a computer operator. It is a fact that a duty of day care exists owed by the defendant to the claimant which has resulted in the claimant suffering a heavy loss in his life and career as well and this can be described as negligence to a greater extent since the injury caused to Geoff could have been avoided if the defendant has not been neglecting his duties. The other employee Peters, who injures a workmate while in the process of playing jokes with neighbours, has done something a reasonable man should not do during working time which can be referred to as an act of gross negligence. This scenario broadly falls under the tort law and is specifically an act of negligence. In attempting to fully analyse the given case study, it is imperative to highlight and explain the tort law and negligence in brief as a way of gaining a clear understanding of the applicability of the laws to the case. A tort law can be described as a civil wrong not arising from a contract and in the case of negligence, one should owe due consideration to one’s neighbour (Capiro Industries vs. Dickman 1990). Negligence can be described as the act of doing something a reasonable man would not do and a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owes a duty of care Donoghue V. Stevenson (1932). It is of paramount importance for the plaintiff to be able to prove that a duty of care has been breached in order to win the claim that the subsequent injury after the action of the defendant could have been avoided in the event that he would have acted within reasonable limits. Indeed, research has shown that there have been some developments in the area of negligence meant to prove the existence of day care duty. Under the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990), the following conditions should be taken into consideration which include; foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability. In some cases it may not always follow that a duty of care exists but common sense ought to prevail to avoid an otherwise serious injury to another person. Some situations are foreseeable before a person embarks on a particular action that may be dangerous to another person. Whilst the defendant thinks that he is playing with a catapult loaded with a scissors, he should have realised that any accidental release of the catapult would be harmful to the person he is pointing at or anyone who is closer to him like in this particular case where the scissors hits another employee. Well, if the catapult had not been directed at some one, it could be understood that the defendant is playing and just trying to be fun but the fact that he deliberately points it at someone leaves him liable to negligent behaviour where he is expected to have foreseen the imminent danger in the event that the catapult accidentally releases like what happens. In the case of Donoghue V. Stevenson (1932) proximity was described as a situation where a neighbour was as a person who is closely and directly affected by somebody’s actions and ought to reasonably take that fact into account. Simply put, the aspect of proximity loosely refers to closeness to somebody which should be taken into consideration to ensure that somebody’s actions should not infringe on another person’s right to enjoy his or her safety. A close analysis of this given case study shows that Peters is practically joking with a catapult within Geoff’s vicinity which speaks volumes with regards to negligent behaviour. It should be noted that such practical jokes are often dangerous within a close range. It would be difficult to ascertain whether the defendant has been playing or that his actions would be intentional. As far as negligence is concerned, the element of proximity plays a crucial role as it would seek to establish the extent to which the defendant can justify his actions by arguing that the resultant injury to the next person would have been a genuine mistake. Whilst foreseeability and proximity can be established in a case of negligence, if the court of law feels that it is not reasonable or just to infer duty of care in the circumstances surrounding the issue, it may be difficult to establish a duty of care. For instance in the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989), the court could not establish that the police owe a duty of care. However, in this particular case the duty of care can be established beyond any reasonable doubt given that when this unfortunate incident happens, the defendant is on duty and it can be established that he is even neglecting his duty by playing with his catapult during working time. In such a given case, it can be as well established that any professionally run organisation ought to make a clear distinction between working time and time for play. Indeed, Peters is at work and he should not be seen playing dangerous games more so, with the neighbours. However, there is need to establish the standard expectations of a reasonable man in order to establish if the duty of care has been breached. It does not require great skill or vice versa to observe the duty of care and there are mainly two factors which ought to be considered as a way of trying to establish if the duty of care has been breached. The likelihood and seriousness of risk of injury ought to be taken into consideration when attempting to measure the defendant’s behaviour against the risk he would have exposed the claimant to. For instance, in the case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) the editor of Salmond on the Law of Torts similarly says: “There are two factors in determining the magnitude of a risk - the seriousness of the injury risked, and the likelihood of the injury being in fact caused.” A catapult loaded with a scissors is potentially very dangerous and any prudent and reasonable person ought to see that such kind of playing would put other people to great risk of being injured. It can also be noted that the defendant did not even bother to take safety precautions against injuring the claimant which further shows that he did not act reasonably enough to avoid injuring his neighbour. There is also need for the claimant to show that he has suffered an injury as a result of the breach of duty care. Whilst in some cases a duty of care can be established and a breach of it as well, it may not be enough to prove a case of negligence unless some form of damage or injury can be identified. In the above mentioned case it can be noted that there is evidence to show that the defendant has been negligent in handling his duty which has resulted in injuring a neighbour, who is another employee, seriously. In fact, he has gone to the extent of neglecting his prescribed duty to a stage where he purportedly ended up playing dangerously with neighbours who are supposed to be pursuing their own business which may be different from playing with catapults. In conclusion, it can be noted that Geoff has suffered a serious injury as a result of the fact that Peters, an employee has been practically joking on a neighbour with a catapult loaded with a scissors during working time. He however, did not take into consideration the seriousness of the injury risked and the likelihood of the injury likely to be caused. This can be described as negligent behaviour in which negligence law can be attributed to the prosecution of such kind of cases. Indeed, the major factors that determine negligence are quite clear and glaring. In the first place, there is foreseeable risk of injuring the claimant but it seems the defendant does not seriously take this into consideration. The aspect of proximity can also be identified where the two are within close range. In any case given these factors and the fact that the defendant is on duty, any reasonable person is expected to act in such a way that would not lead to injury of someone while on duty which can be described as the breach of duty care. All this evidence will lead to the conclusion that the defendant has breached the duty of care which can be classified as negligence. It would be highly recommended that this organisation, Ricky Gervais & Co Ltd, ought to establish some formal structure which observes the line of authority within the organisation. It seems all the power and authority is vested in Mr Gervais who oversees all the operations and day to day running of the affairs of the organisation. During his absence such incidents like the one highlighted in the above case study are likely to be common since the workers would tend to be reluctant fully knowing that the ‘boss” who oversees their operations is not around. At least there should be another person junior to the CEO who also acts as a source of authority who can ensure that the behaviour of workers would not go out of control to such an extent where they would totally neglect their duties and embark on risk activities that are likely to harm neighbours. All the same, Geoff the injured employ ought to be inside office performing computer related tasks not to be seen wandering in the open space during working time. One good advice that can be given especially to Mr Gervais is that he should improve the working conditions of his workers. They work under strenuous conditions which offer very little comfort and this kind of operation is not advisable in any way. The working environment itself ought to be conducive to such an extent that the workers would feel to be part of the organisation where they will enjoy their work instead of seen wandering outside at the slightest chance even though it would be time for work. In some cases, workers are motivated to do their job simply by the environment they would be working under. It would therefore be more advisable that Mr Gervais ought to seriously take into consideration the needs and welfare of his workers since the conditions they operate under do not paint an admirable picture. It would also be advisable for Mr Gervais to decentralise his line of authority to other people as a way of attempting to minimise cases of negligence of duty by employees. It seems from a close reading of the case study that the organisation is not being professionally run which is another causal factor for such behaviour by workers. References Negligence UK (2007) Retrieved on 12 April 2009 From: http://en.jurispedia.org/index.php/Negligence_(uk) Clinical negligence and compensation laws, Retrieved on 12 Apr. 09 From: http://www.hospitalnegligence.co.uk/clinical_negligence_definition.html HOUSE OF LORDS HILL v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE [1989] AC 53 28 April 1988, Retrieved on 12 April 2009 From: http://www.a-level-law.com/caselibrary/HILL%20v%20CC%20WEST%20YORKS%20%5B1988%5D%202%20AER%20238%20-%20HL.doc Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords Retrieved on 12 Apr. 09 From: http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20abcd/donoghue_v_Stevenson.htm Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 13 December 1950, Retrieved on 12 Apr. 09, From: http://www.a-level-law.com/caselibrary/PARIS%20v%20STEPNEY%20BOROUGH%20COUNCIL%20%5B1951%5D%20AC%20367%20-%20HL.doc Read More