Risks of the Albert Supermarket and Kotva Store - Assignment Example

Risk Management Report: Albert Supermarket, Kotva Store Affiliation Table of contents Report Introduction…………………………………………………..3 Tortious Risks Involving the Employer and the Customer…………..3 Tortious Risks Involving the Employer and the Employee…………..4 Risk Management Strategies that are in Place to Minimize Risk…….5 Further Risk Management Strategies that could be applied………….6 Legal Options against a Customer…………………………………....7 Conclusion…………………………………………………………....7 References……………………………………………………………9 Risk Management Report: Albert Supermarket, Kotva Store Report Introduction The Supermarket has numerous daily interaction with a massive number of customers. The supermarket also has numerous employee in its departments. From this composition, numerous areas of risks may develop. How effective are the risk management strategies put in place to ensure legality of operations between the employer and the employees, and the employer and the customer? Tortious Risks Involving the Employer and the Customer Tortious risks refer to cases that cannot be judged as criminal offenses but other mild forms of offenses that can be addressed through legal means (Lunney & Oliphant, 2003). Upon vising the store, the employer has the responsibility to ensure the safety of the customer. The Kotva store has a tiled floor, shelves arranged horizontally to allow for proper stocking of products and furniture made from either glass or wood. Firstly, the tiled floor may be a cause of a tripping incident. If a customer trips and is injured while shopping, they may claim damages from the owner. In addition, if an attendant is washing the floor and a customer trips, the owner may still be liable for the injuries incurred by the customer. In an argument by Ebert & Morrell (2012) if a person is injured while in a premises of another person, they may get compensation from the owner. However, if the person is injured as a result of their mistake the owner may not be found liable (Ebert & Morrell, 2012). It would be also be addressed ad negligence is a customer is harmed by a product purchased from the store. The owner of the store has a responsibility to ensure that the products traded in the store are safe for human consumption or use. For instance, if a customer purchases bread from the Kotva store and get food poisoning, the owner of the store is liable for the injuries. However, if the store owner was provided with false information by the manufacturer about a product, the liability may be shifted to the manufacturer. Deakin, Johnston & Markesinis (2008) assert that negligence can only be valid under tort if a person was falsely provided with information by a third party. The authors further asserts that negligence is only applicable if a person ignore to analyse the information available prior to an incident (Deakin, Johnston & Markesinis, 2008). As stated by the rules in the store, the customer is liable for the damages they incur to the store. For instance, if a customer is accompanied by children and they spill beverages, the customer should pay for the damages. The Kotva store states the rule on its shelves. In addition, the customer may be found liable if they break any seals on products prior to their purchase. In the store, sealed goods are provided with samples that the customer may use for sample testing. If a customer breaks a seal or packaging without authorization they be required to pay for the product. Tortious Risks Involving the Employer and the Employee In an argument by Collins (2010) the existence of an employee-employer agreement should be inclusive of areas of possible risks in the relationship. The author further asserts that the employer should address possible risks prior to employment (Collins, 2010). Failure to provide the requirements, the may be find liable for negligence if the customer is injured or commits a mistake. In the Kotva store, the employee are provided with employment specifications before employment. For instance, the employees are notified on their roles in handling products and customers. Moreover, the employees are notified on the consequences of negligence on their side. However, there general tort risks that are imminent in the store. The employer is responsible for the health and safety of the employees. The owner should ensure that the store is well secured and safe for the employees. David (2009) points out that the employer should ensure the workplace is safe and secure for the employees. The further asserts that processes such as product handling should be addressed effectively (David, 2009). For instance, it is required that employers provide machines for product handling to minimize the need for manual handling. In an incident where the employee is injured while handling products, the employer is liable for the injuries. In addition, all workplace injuries are held liable to the employer. The employer is also liable for the actions of the staff. In the Kotva store, the staff are educated and trained on their required duties. In an instance where a staff makes a mistake, it is referred to as negligence on the part of the employer. For instance, if an employee causes injury on a customer, the employer is liable for the injuries caused on the customer. Moreover, any injuries or harm caused on a person or property inside or outside the workplace by a staff member while acting on behalf of the organization are held liable on the employer. On the other hand, a staff may be held liable if they breach the terms of the employment contract. For instance, the Kotva store may find an employee liable for the damage of property inside the store. This employment condition when breached may lead to termination of employment. In addition, if the employee handles products inappropriately and damage is caused, they are liable for the loss incurred. However, in an instance where the accident could not be avoided, the employee should not be liable for the damages. Risk Management Strategies that are in Place to Minimize Risk In regards to customers, the store has printed basic rules and regulations when shopping and handling goods. For the customers, it is required from them to handle goods with utmost care. The store states that the customer is liable for the damages incurred on the products they handle inappropriately. For instance, breaking seals and packages without authorization is illegal inside the store. The store states that a product is perceived as sold if a seal is broken. For this reason, the customer is liable for any damages on the products they handle. When the store is under minimal renovations at specific locations, they provide caution signs to warn the shoppers of possible dangers. For instance, an area can be completely cordoned off due to ongoing constructions. If a customer gains access to the area, the owner may not be liable for the injuries they incur. In this case, it may be referred to as negligence on the side of the customer. Collins (2010) asserts that labels and notification in the workplace should be considered by both the employees and visitors. With proper notification and labelling, the owner may not be found liable for injuries incurred. The Kotva store also has in place comprehensive employment contracts that minimize the tortious employment risks. The laws includes the requirement of the employees, the rights of the employees, the extent at which the employees can act on behalf of the store and consequences of breach of the employment contract. Further Risk Management Strategies that could be applied Firstly, the employment contract should be inclusive of factors that may prompt employment termination. An employee may seek legal action if they are terminated from their working position due to their mistakes. The conditions should include minimal factors such as poor customer service, careless workplace accidents and incurred losses due to unprofessionalism. In the instance where the employee represents the store, they should be liable for the damage and harm they inflict on a customer or a property if they act inappropriately. To increase the effectiveness of the strategies, they should be provided prior to employment. In regards to customers, the store should create strategies that exclude them from liability of faulty goods. The store may notify the customers that they should read or inquire for a product information before they make a purchase. This should include the manufacturing and expiry date. The notification may be useful in a situation where the store is sued for damages from a product they traded. In addition, the store should provide regulations on the returning of goods option. There should be time frame after which a customer may not be allowed to return good they have already purchased. These provision should exclusively be provided to customers before they trade in the store. David (2009) points out that provisions on the rights to trade can only be admissible legally if the customer is notified prior to their contract entrant. Legal Options against a Customer Deakin, Johnston & Markesinis (2008) are of the assumption that proper customer notification may provide the best legal defence in case of a court procedure. In the possibility of injury liability, the store can cite the customer’s carelessness while in the store. For instance, a customer may sue the store for tripping during cleaning time. The store may argue that the attendant has erected a wet floor sign that was ignored by the customer before an accident. The risks of faulty products may be successfully defended in court by citing that a customer is required to read or enquire for product information before they make a purchase. In addition, the store may cite irresponsibility on the manufacturer’s side Conclusion In conducting the research, it is an accurate disclosure that the consideration of legal standpoints in creating risk management strategies is mandatory. In analysing the possible risks from claims by employees and customers, an organization is well placed to succeed if they provide documentation on the freedom, rights and responsibilities of all involved parties. This is important in that, in case of legal proceedings, an organization may be able to escape liability since negligence may be considered to be on the part of either the customer or staff member. References Collins, H. 2010. Employment Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. David, I. 2009. “Tort: English Common Law”. The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History, 5, 467. Deakin, S., Johnston, A. & Markesinis, Q. 2008. Markesinis & Deakins Tort Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ebert, I. & Morrell, J. 2012. Retailer Guide to Claims Brought by Customer and Employees. London: DWF. Lunney, M. & Oliphant, K. 2003. Tort Law - Texts, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press Read More