Incisive Outlook on the Legal Issues - Case Study Example

Running Head: EMPLOYMENT LAW Employment Law Name Course Institution Date Employment Law Introduction The “Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe” is a delivery florist company located in the Melbourne Central Business District area. The company has approximately 20 couriers who deliver gifts and flowers from one place to the other through roller blades. Couriers from the company wear green jackets with an embossed “Team Daisy” print at the back of their jackets. On October 23, 2003 Mrs. Smith was allegedly leaving a building located in North Melbourne when one of the couriers on roller blades from the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe accidentally struck her causing her to fall on the ground. The courier apologized as he rushed off from the scene limping. Mrs. Smith noted that the courier was wearing a green jacket embossed with a golden print. Consequently, Mrs. Smith acquired injuries in her hip area, her condition required immediate surgery. It was later established that she suffers from a permanent limb that will require corrective surgeries in future. In turn Mrs. Smith seeks to take legal action against the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company. This paper seeks to present a comprehensive and incisive outlook on the legal issues emerging from the above scenario. It will discuss the various variables that the court will consider when determining liability in the court case of Mrs. Smith versus the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company. Moreover, this paper will incorporate various legal principles and court cases to analyze the various legal aspects emerging from the above scenario. Issues Key issues emerging from the above scenario revolve around the level of control that the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company has over its courier. Given the fact that the couriers work their own rosters, are paid per deliver and the wearing of uniforms is voluntary it is uncertain whether Mrs. Smith has legal grounds for taking legal action against the company. Moreover, it is questionable on how Mrs. Smith can take legal action against an unidentified person. How can she prove that the courier who ran her down was from the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company? Another issue that can be raised from this scenario is whether the nature of the job is illegal since the couriers from the company skate on the footpaths of the Melbourne central Business District. Additionally, issues emerging from this scenario cause us to question whether the flower shop pays taxes for its couriers. Furthermore, we are caused to question whether the couriers are employees or contractors. The legal implications of the above scenario incline towards the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company. This is mainly because the use of roller blades in the central district area poses an inherent risk to the general public. Apparently, this is negligence on the part of the company and as a result Mrs. Smith’s claims of liability against the company might be successful. Consequently, the court’s ruling will require the company to render compensation to Mrs. Smith for the injuries that she was subjected to and the money spent to cater for her hip condition. However this depends on whether, Mrs. Smith can prove that the courier who ran her down was from the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company. The rules applied in this scenario will also dictate the ruling the court (Burdick, 2001). Fundamental employment issues such as the rates of equipment or pay prevision in reference to the roller blades are also apparent in the above scenario. Given the fact that these elements are perpetual in the company’s operation thus they are imperative factors that the court can use to determine liability. In this scenario it is questionable on the totality of the employment. An issue emerges on whether the couriers from the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company are independent contractors or employees. Rules The above scenario presents several legal aspects that revolve around the principle of vicarious liability. This principle accentuates on the responsibility of the superior for the actions of the subordinates. In this case the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company should take responsibility for the damages caused by its employees. According to this principle the employers or companies are vicariously liable for the omissions or the negligent acts done by their employees in the course of their employment duties. Given the fact that a company can only act through its agents, it is necessary to make judgment on the circumstance that the principle of vicarious liability is applicable. Court cases revolving around this rule include, Lloyd vs. Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716) and Armagas Limited vs. Mundogas S.A. [1986] 1 AC 717) (Baty, 1991). The rule of negligence tort is also applicable in this scenario since there was breach of duty of care on the part of the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company. The company through its couriers negligently refused to render to Mrs. Smith a duty of care. The Company’s courier struck Mrs. Smith using roller blades thus inflicting injuries that can be termed as permanent unless she undergoes reconstructive surgeries (Cooke, 2005). Subsequent to this incident the company did not offer any remedy to Mrs. Smith therefore the principle of negligence tort is applicable in this scenario. If these sentiments are verified by the court Mrs. Smith is liable for remedy in form of compensation. The court cases Lieback versus the McDonalds Restaurant D-202 CV-93-02419, 1994(the McDonalds coffee case) exemplifies certain aspects of the above scenario. Similarly, the court case of Palsgraf versus the Long Island Railroad Company 162 N.E 99(N. Y 1928) embodies certain aspects of the above scenario. It is apparent that this court case applies elements in the principles of liability, negligence and tort. In this court case, the plaintiff, Mrs. Helen Palsgraf was allegedly injured when one of the company’s guards was trying to stop a passenger from boarding a moving train. The passenger was carrying containing fireworks and as they guard tried to save him, fireworks exploded causing injuries to Mrs. Palsgraf. Consequently, Mrs. Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad Company for the negligent acts of its employees. The courts dismissed Mrs. PalsGraf’s claims citing that her injuries were too indirect to make the company liable. The judges established that there was no way that guard could have established that there was passenger’s package had explosive fireworks. Clearly, in this court cases the application of the principle of negligence and the duty of care is questionable. Nonetheless, the ruling of the court demonstrates that harm was indicted to Mrs. Palsgraf without negligence therefore liability is inapplicable in this court case. In reference to the above scenario Mrs. Smith claims of liability can be denied if she fails to prove that the injuries inflicted to her directly out of negligence on the part of the company (Wagner & Baker, 2005). In reference to the court case Stevens vs. Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 160 it is evident that the practice of work can be subject to control or direction of an actual supervision. The emphasis of this court case mainly lies in the aspect of vicarious liability and negligence largely intertwined through the various employment issues. Moreover, the court case of Hollis vs. Vabu Pty limited (2001) HCA 44 further epitomizes the various invents in the above scenario. Principally, this court case deals with the concern of whether couriers on roller coasters are independent contractors or employees. Nonetheless, the court’s decision solely lies in the company’s policies and operations with its contractors or employees. Application There exist various variables in the above scenario that the court can use to determine liability. In order for the court to determine liability in this case it is essential for Mrs. Smith to assuredly prove that she was indeed struck by a courier from the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company. Thereafter, the court should establish the extent of the injuries solely caused by the alleged incident. A key variable that the court needs to determine so as to validate the liability claims is whether there have been past incidents caused by the company’s courier’s moving on rollers blades. If it is established that there have been such past incidences liability will be determined since this shows that the Company is aware of the risks that the general public is exposed to when the company’s courier’s moving on rollers blades within the central business district. The legality of the company’s courier moving on rollers blades within the central business district is put to question. In most cases such movements are restricted within the central business district, nonetheless, in some localities companies pay taxes. Dwelling on the assumption that such movements are legalized and that the company pay taxes the company stands no charges other than the incident involving Mrs. Smith and the courier. The application of the principle of vicarious liability will largely depend on whether the couriers are employed or they are contractors. In a case whereby the couriers are employed this principle will inherently apply and as a result, the company is liable to render compensation to Mrs. Smith due to the injuries caused by its couriers (Baty, 1991). Furthermore, it is vital for the courts to establish whether the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company owes a duty of care to Mrs. Smith after the injuries indicted to her as result of the incident. Given the fact that the injuries were direct the company owes Mrs. Smith a duty of care. Consequently, claims of negligence are inherent since the company hardly compensated Mrs. Smith for the injuries inflicted by its courier employee thus the court should determine liability in this court case. In order for the court to establish liability on the part of the company it is imperative that the company’s policies on its operations with its contractors or employees are put into account. (Gaskell & Redfield, 2008). Conclusion Evidently, the above scenario presents a number of legal issues that revolve around the law of vicarious liability. In order for the court to determine liability in this case it is essential for Mrs. Smith to assuredly prove that she was indeed struck by a courier from the Daisy’s Daisy Shoppe Company. The legality of the company’s courier moving on rollers blades within the central business district is put to question in this scenario. The application of the principle of vicarious liability will largely depend on whether the couriers are employed or they are contractors. In a case whereby the couriers are employed this principle will inherently apply and as a result, the company is liable to render compensation to Mrs. Smith due to the injuries caused by its couriers. References Baty, T. (1991).Vicarious liability. UK: Clenderon Publishers. Burdick, F. (2001). The law of torts: a concise treatise on the civil liability at common law. New York: Banks and company Publishers. Cooke, J. (2005). Law of tort. New York. Longman Publishers. Gaskell, T& Redfield, A. (2008). A treatise on the law of negligence. New York: Barker Publishers. Wagner, G & Baker, T. (2005). Tort law and liability insurance. UK: Springer Publisher. Court cases Armagas Limited vs. Mundogas S.A. [1986] 1 AC 717) Lieback vs. the McDonalds Restaurant D-202 CV-93-02419, 1994(the McDonalds coffee case). Lloyd vs. Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716) Hollis vs. Vabu Pty limited (2001) HCA 44 Palsgraf vs. the Long Island Railroad Company 162 N.E 99(N. Y 1928). Stevens vs. Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 160 Read More