Elements of Tort of Negligence and Defences in Business Situations

In the present case it can be said that the owner of the wharf cannot sue the chatterers of the UK ship as it was seen in a similar case where a UK ship that was stationary at the Sydney Harbour and accidentally a barrel of oil fell from the ship on the harbour. The UK ship authority to all the necessary precautionary steps and advised the owner of the wharf that it is less likely that the oil would catch fire. But due to the unfortunate event of a fall of a piece of molten metal on a piece of cotton waste that was floating near the wharf the oil caught fire and the wharf got destroyed. Due to this event the owner of the wharf sued the owners of the UK ship, later it was held by the court that it will be difficult for a rational person to foresee the occurrence of the event and hence the owners of the UK ship cannot be held liable for the damage that has been caused to the wharf.

As per the situation presented in this scenario it can be said that the employer had all such means to discover or predict the degree of risk associated with the job and it was not impossible for him to do so. And accordingly he could have taken the required precautionary steps to protect his employees, but he didn’t do so and due to his negligence damage has been caused to Bill. And as Bill got injured during the course of his employment and his act had a direct connection with his employment, the employer will become liable for the damages caused to Bill.

The term vicariously liable is regarded as creation of a liability to person due to the faulty acts of a third person. In a business organisation help and employer can be held liable vicariously due to the wrongful act of an employee. Every employer should have an in-depth knowledge about the law in order to protect the business interest. The wrong done by the employee can make the employer liable vicariously when the commission of the wrong was done by the employee at the time when he is still there in the employment and the act of the employee has a link with the employment.

As per the situation presented in the present scenario it can be said that the employer will be held liable vicariously for the act of his employee, in order to turn an employer vicariously liable for the wrong done by his employee it must be checked that the wrong done by his employee should be in the course of his employment and the wrongful acts as committed by the employee should have a direct link with the employment. Here we can find that the act of the employee has a connection with the job and during the time when the act was committed the employee was still there in the employment, hence the employer will be held liable for the act of the employee.

The present case has a similarity with another case where a petrol pump attendant incited one of the customers of the petrol pump as the attendant doubted that the customer will go without paying. As a result of this the customer got angry and tried to complain the petrol pump owner against the petrol pump attendant and in order to stop the customer from complaining the owner the petrol pump attendant assaulted the customer and as a result of that the customer sued the petrol pump owner but it was held in the court of law that the petrol pump owner cannot be held liable for this whole incident as the activity of the petrol pump attendant had no relation with his job and that ended acted in a manner which is entirely personal in nature. Hence in this case also the employer cannot be held liable for the acts of his employee as it had no relation with his job.

From the above discussion we have acquired various knowledge regarding the law of contract we have understood the different essential features that constitutes a valid contract, we have also learnt about the different terms of a contract. Contract is very wide spread and covers a long range of activities.