Judgement of the President of Techbyte - Essay Example

Did Don have a duty of care? Absolutely, if a person gets into an automobile as a passenger it is entirely reasonable to assert that they expect and the driver accepts the responsibility of safely conveying them to their destination.

In this case, if anything, Don had a greater than normal duty of care as, by the time of the crash, Paula was a virtual prisoner in the vehicle. She ‘repeatedly asked Don to stop and let her out of the car…. Don ignored her requests.’ Arguably, Don was a kidnapper at this point with Paula confined by his refusal to let her out.
Regardless of this tangent, Don was responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle and the safety of Paula, his passenger. He breached that care when he drove, insistently, until exhausted and dozed off.

Against this claim Don has only one defense: That the duty of care for Paula’s safety rested with Techbyte rather than himself, personally and individually.
A Techbyte employee had driven Paula to the conference and asked Don to return her home as he, the president, was staying at the convention for another day. Approached by the president, Don, ‘a trusted employee’ agreed. He was not doing a friend a favour he was acceding to his superior’s request. Further, during the trip, they were to ‘discuss Techbyte’s future computer needs on the way.’ Ultimately, in this scenario, Don was ‘at work’ when the accident occurred and acting as an employee of Techbyte and not as an individual.

This, then, gives rise to a second question: Could Techbyte be held liable for the injuries Paula sustained in the car accident that resulted from Don’s negligent driving? Yes, they could. It is difficult to defend against the claim that Don was acting as an employee when he agreed to drive Paula home. As a ‘trusted employee’, presumably a man the president had known for some time, he was a reasonable and responsible choice. At that point, Techbyte’s duty of care was fulfilled and the duty of care passed to Don, the driver.
This is not a strong claim, but there is a significant mitigating factor here. Don did not injure Paula in the course of a normal drive home. He refused to let her smoke or, presumably to stop to let her smoke as he later refused to stop when she entreated him to let her out. Then he obsessively drove beyond exhaustion. Don was not acting as an employee any longer, in this scenario. He was acting bizarrely, in an unprecedented manner, pursuing a personal agenda. The strange behavior that culminated in Paula’s injuries could never have been foreseen by the president of Techbyte.

The case also involves a second issue. The day after the accident, Don described Paula as a ‘doper’ to the president of Techbyte. Don did so probably knowing that the president ‘hated all drug users.’ Paula was summarily, presumably while still in the hospital, notified the account was no longer hers.

This is a slanderous assertion and clearly one against which Don has few defenses. He can hardly claim that he believed it to be the truth (with good reason). He cannot claim that it was said in good faith or that it was innocent information dissemination. He made up a falsehood, started a vicious rumor, against a woman he clearly had personal issues with and was, inevitably, in the beginning, stages of a long legal conflict with. Moreover, he told that fabrication to a man with power over her who he knew ‘hated all drug users.’
Frankly, one has to question the judgment of the president of Techbyte in all this.

That he moved from allegation to action quickly is absurd. Had Paula been an employee a wrongful dismissal suit would have followed. Further, that the president did not see any potential for an ulterior motive is farcical. It only adds to one’s questions about his judgment when he perceived Don as a ‘trusted employee’ and, apparently, a trustworthy snitch despite his bizarre behaviour. Techbyte is clearly staffed by some eccentric individuals. Read More