{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

MANAGING FOR EFFECTIVE AND ETHICAL ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Essay 7

MANAGING FOR EFFECTIVE AND ETHICAL ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Essay 7

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MANAGING FOR EFFECTIVE AND ETHICAL ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Essay 7 MBA
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
In order to find error committed by which party we have to analyze the root cause of the incident in which the driver suffer fatal head injuries and lost his life. Which party contributes to most in happening this accident. Is the widow can be successful against the Ford can be found by considering the element of negligence. There are five major aspects that should be considered. The first element is ‘the duty’, that mean that each of us has the duty to act like an ordinary and reasonably prudent person in all circumstances. For example, suppose you are driving on a curvy highway late at night and it is raining quite heavily. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. However, the ordinary and reasonably prudent person will not drive 45 mph because the road and the weather conditions dictate the slower driving is more appropriate. In this case it is the duty of Ford motor to prepare vehicle that informs the driver that he or she had not wear the belt. It is mention that the driver was not wearing the belt but if had been inform by the vehicle by giving a warning or mentioning by an indicator then the man had survived. The second important element is ‘breach of duty’ it means that ‘A duty has been breached when a defendant has knowingly exposed another to potential damage. A defendant who did not realize he was exposing another to harm, but should have recognized the probability that any reasonable person would have recognized has breached his duty as well. In our case Ford has breach his duty by not manufacturing the car according the standard of safety. Had the card door had not open after hitting the fence that the motorist could survived. Another element that could be considered is called ‘Causation’. There is test often used to determine Causation is the ‘but for’ test which is limited by the so-called zone of danger. It requires the plaintiff be in the zone of danger when the injury occurs. An act may cause injury to a plaintiff, but it was not reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would be injured. When an act sets off a chain of events that ultimately injures the plaintiff, but the plaintiff is very far removed from the original act, the act is the factual cause and not the legal cause needed to impose liability on the defendant. In this case if the
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern