Legal Issues for Management Assignment Sample

• Type Assignment
• Downloads543
• Pages10
• Words2425

Introduction: Legal Rights and Remedies of the Parties

This essay will evaluate the legal rights and remedies of Osman, Nigel and Phil based on the incident of SpeedMovers Ltd and the employees, Mike. The legal challenges of this case study are mental distress, negligence and vicarious liability. The essay will be developed in three main parts. First part will involve analysis of the potential negligence claim by Nigel to focus on the breach of duty violation of Mike and understanding if the SpeedMovers Ltd is vicariously accountable for his performance. In the second part, it would explore the claim of Osman for emotional anguish brought on by the near collision. In the third part, the paper will explain possible mental distress claims of Phil, focusing on the impacts of seeing the tragedy. However, the IRAC structure will be followed for this essay. Issue: What types of lawsuits can individuals file? Rule: What are the applicable rules on these issues? Application: How do these concepts relate to the facts of the case? Conclusion: what will be the legal outcomes? The evaluation will be evidenced by citations to case law and pertinent statutes. This technique can guarantee a comprehensive and methodical evaluation of every party’s legal condition and available remedies.

Structured samples are provided to help students understand academic requirements and improve writing skills. With our UK assignment help, guidance is provided while maintaining originality. The Legal Issues for Management sample highlights key legal concepts, including negligence, vicarious liability, and emotional distress claims, with practical application in workplace and client scenarios. These resources are intended solely for study and reference purposes.

Legal Issues for Management Assignment Sample

Liked This Sample? Hire Me Now

Harriet Collins 12 Years | PhD

Discussion

The case examines the legal rights and remedies of Nigel, Osman, and Phil following the boating incident. It considers claims of negligence, vicarious liability, and emotional distress, analysing how Mike’s actions breached his duty of care and the potential liability of SpeedMovers Ltd. Each party’s situation is assessed to determine possible compensation for physical and psychological harm.

Nihel’s claim: Negligence and Vicarious Liability

• Issue: The main issue in this scenario is whether Nigel can seek any damage for his injuries due to the negligent behavior of Mike and whether SpeedMovers Ltd may be held vicariously accountable for the activities of Mike.
• Negligence: Mike's conduct driving the boat at a high speed and losing control represents a lack of care to exercise the duty owed to passengers. As a skipper, Mike owed it to himself and others to drive the boat in a safe manner, complying with safety regulations and speed restrictions. His breach of this constitutes negligence.
• Causation: Mike's high-speed driving was directly responsible for the accident, where Nigel was flung into the sea and injured.
• Injury and Harm: Nigel's injuries were exacerbated by his allergy to saltwater. Although Mike was not likely to know of Nigel's allergy, the general rule in tort law is that a defendant is responsible for the entire extent of the harm resulting from their negligence, even if the particular harm was not predictable.
• Duty of care: The claimant was entitled to the reasonable precautions from the defendant to prevent illness.
• Breach of responsibility: By not acting in a way that a normal person can, the defendant would be violated that responsibility (Stephen, 2021)
• Causation: The claimant’s harm was brought on by the violation.
• Damage: It results in the violation, the claimant experienced real harm.

Employers are held accountable for their acts of employees under the vicarious responsibility and the employee has been acting in the course of their job during the incident. This can cover actions taken when working, even if the illness was not directly brought on by the employer.

Application: In this case Mike is a skipper who has the responsibility towards his passengers to take care of them. As he could not take care of the passenger Nigel so he violated this obligation by excelling the speed restriction set by the law for the waters. Because of the careless driving, Nigel has propelled into the sea and had illnesses that were made unacceptable due to allergy from saltwater. It has been assumed that speeding can lead to the passenger to be hurt due to being thrown from the boat. In terms of vicarious culpability, Mike has been operating as a SpeedMovers skipper within the overall parameters of his job. Despite being careless, Mike's action occurred when he was doing his duty (Button et al., 2022). This whole incident highlights key Legal Issues for Management, as it shows the importance of proper employee training and supervision to prevent negligence claims and shows that the SpeedMovers Ltd would be vicariously liable for the carelessness of Mike. Since Mike is working for SpeedMovers, the company will be held vicariously liable for Mike's negligence. According to this doctrine, SpeedMovers can be held liable for compensating Nigel for his damages, even when the company directly participated in no way. SpeedMovers is responsible for seeing to it that its employees, such as Mike, are properly trained and competent to do their job safely. Because Mike was a recently trained skipper, it could be argued that SpeedMovers failed to properly train or supervise him and this could be used as evidence of employer negligence (Lewis and Bolton, 2023). Nigel can recover damages from SpeedMovers for his personal injury, which can be the same as listed above (medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering. For example, in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, the court formulated the principle of negligence, wherein a duty of care must be extended to other people, and the breach of such duty by the defendant leads to injury. Nigel was injured directly due to the negligence of Mike.

Conclusion: Nigel has a reliable claim for negligence against Mike and Speed Movers Ltd for vicarious duty. Additionally, he is also entitled to the compensation for the bodily injuries and development of his allergy associated situation (lawteacher.net, 2024).

Osman’s Claim: Emotional Distress

• Issue: The main issue is whether Osman was almost struck by the bat that can sue for emotional anguish brought on by his fear of getting hit even if he was not hurt.
• Negligence: Osman was swimming when Mike's careless boating might have resulted in a collision. Mike had a duty of care towards all people in the water, including swimmers such as Osman. High-speed driving and losing control of the boat is negligence, which might have resulted in Osman being injured.
• Causation and Foreseeability: It is predictable that speeding a boat close to swimmers would cause injury. If Osman was likely to be hit or injured by the boat, this duty breach might give rise to a claim.
• Rule: When someone has been experiencing psychological harm after becoming a witness of an incident or getting threatened with violence, they can file a claim under the overall tort of nervous shock. Generally, the claimant needs to demonstrate that the claimant was among the victims who could have been predicted. A traumatic incident is the origin of the claimant’s anguish. The claimant was in a major deal of distress. As per the ruling in Page v. Smith [1996] AC 155, an individual could be compensated for any kind of psychological harm in case the harm was brought on by the carelessness of the defendant. Another case law example is The court in Harris v Perry [2008] EWCA Civ 907 found the defendant was liable for reckless injury. Osman has a cause of action here for Mike's negligence (croneri.co.uk, 2025)

Application: Osman mainly faced severe psychological harm which results in seeing the boat come dangerously close to the collision as he was in fear for his life. Given the proximity of the risky situation, it is acceptable to say that it was predictable that someone in the position of Osman can suffer from the emotional discomfort. Courts have recognized that those who are witnessing a terrible occurrence may have emotional distress (Lilienthal and Ahmad, 2022). Addressing such risks is an essential part of Legal Issues for Management, ensuring that companies implement safety measures to protect all individuals around their operations. Those people are eligible for compensation although they are not physically hurt. Since Mike is SpeedMovers' employee, the company may be held responsible for his negligence, even though Osman was not a direct passenger on the boat.

SpeedMovers must make sure that all activities that involve its boats are conducted safely, both for passengers and other people around, like swimmers (French et al., 2022). SpeedMovers may be held liable if it is proven that their safety measures were inadequate. If SpeedMovers is held vicariously liable, Osman may recover damages for personal injury, lost income, and psychological damage.

Conclusion: Conclusively it can be said that the Osman probably has a good case for nervous shock. He is mainly entitled to compensation for the psychological damage that was brought on by the terror and worry he felt at the time of the near miss.

Phil’s claim: Mental Distress as a relative

• Issue: The issue is whether Phil was there when the incident involving Osman and Nigel occurred, can be suited for mental anguish brought on by careless speedbat operation of Mike.
• Nervous Shock: Phil saw Nigel in severe distress following the boating accident. Although Phil was not directly involved in the accident, he may still have a claim for psychological damage (nervous shock) as a result of witnessing the upsetting event.
• Causation and Foreseeability: To be successful in an action for nervous shock, Phil needs to prove that the event was sufficiently shocking to give rise to psychiatric harm. In most legal systems, the damage caused by witnessing a loved one in peril is considered a viable cause of action.
• Relationship: The relationship between Phil and Nigel as longstanding partners increases the chances of success in the claim. Courts would normally hold close family members (e.g., partner or spouse) to be within the "zone of danger" for claims of this kind.
• Rule: A claimant needs to typically show the following to develop an emotional distress claim (Aristova, 2021). The claimant was entitled to a duty of care from the all defendants. That obligation has been broken by the defendant. The claimant has faced emotional distress which results in the duty breach. The severity of the emotional harm sustained gives evidence that the emotional anguish was substantial. As per the law, emotional distress needs to have been a predictable outcome of the defendant’s acts in conditions engaging bystanders to incidents. For an emotional distress claim to be successful, courts can frequently need a close relationship between the primary victim and claimant. For example, Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310, reaffirms the right to claims of emotional distress on behalf of immediate family members witnessing traumatic incidents, as did Phil in seeing Nigel injured.

Application: The claim of Phil stems from the emotional distress after finding the accident scene and identifying Nigel in excruciating pain at the hospital. The following directions need to be followed for evaluation of his claim in light of negligent principles. Mike had the responsibility to take care of Osman, Nigel and other nearby residents and possibly to Phil. However, Phil has not been directly involved in the tragedy, the opportunity of this duty of care to him is generally smaller (Canning, 2021). Nonetheless, understanding these responsibilities is part of Legal Issues for Management, as employers must foresee indirect harm and manage risks to employees and third parties alike. However, Phil is the close partner of Nigel and would counter that Mike had an obligation to safeguard Nigel from the harm, thereby protecting him from seeing the upsetting accident. If Phil can prove that he suffered psychological damage as a result of seeing Nigel's injuries and distress, then he could be awarded compensation for emotional distress, medical care for psychological damage, and pain and suffering. If Phil can prove that Mike's conduct was negligent and resulted in his psychological injury, he may also sue SpeedMovers. Since Mike was in the course of his employment when he committed the wrongs, SpeedMovers may be vicariously liable for the emotional distress suffered by Phil.

Conclusion: Phil might be able to recover against SpeedMovers for his emotional harm, though some states have a higher standard of proof for nervous shock or emotional distress claims.

Conclusion: Final Determination of Claims and Liabilities

In this situation, Nigel, Osman, and Phil all have potential claims against Mike and SpeedMovers Ltd. Nigel may bring a claim for personal injury against Mike for his negligent conduct in driving the speedboat negligently. Mike's failure of duty directly resulted in Nigel's injuries, and his allergy to saltwater aggravated the damage, for which Mike remains fully responsible under the "take your victim as you find him" principle. Nigel may also hold SpeedMovers vicariously liable since Mike was acting in the course of his employment when the accident happened.

Osman, who was almost struck by the boat, can recover for personal injury or distress inflicted by Mike's negligence. As the employer of Mike, SpeedMovers is also vicariously liable for Osman's damage. Phil, who saw Nigel injured, could assert psychological injury (nervous shock) from the distress caused by witnessing his partner getting hurt. His relationship with Nigel makes his case stronger, and he can seek damages from both Mike and SpeedMovers for emotional distress. All three parties, Nigel, Osman, and Phil, have valid claims to compensation, and Mike and SpeedMovers could be held liable for the physical and psychological damage inflicted by the accident.

References

• Aristova, E., 2021. The future of tort litigation against transnational corporations in the English courts: Is forum [non] conveniens back?. Business and Human Rights Journal, 6(3), pp.399-422
• Button, M., Shepherd, D., Blackbourn, D., Sugiura, L., Kapend, R. and Wang, V., 2022. Assessing the seriousness of cybercrime: The case of computer misuse crime in the United Kingdom and the victims’ perspective. Criminology & Criminal Justice, p.17488958221128128.
• Canning, V., 2021. Managing expectations: impacts of hostile migration policies on practitioners in Britain, Denmark and Sweden. Social Sciences, 10(2), p.65.
• croneri.co.uk (2025).Harris v Perry and Another [2008] EWCA Civ 907.Available at: https://app.croneri.co.uk/law-and-guidance/case-reports/harris-v-perry-and-another-2008-ewca-civ-907.
• French, L., Hanna, P. and Huckle, C., 2022. “If I die, they do not care”: UK National Health Service staff experiences of betrayal-based moral injury during COVID-19. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 14(3), p.516.
• Lewis, J. and Bolton, P., 2023. Student mental health in England: Statistics, policy, and guidance. House of Commons Library, 4.
• Lilienthal, G. and Ahmad, N., 2022. Criminal Intent and the Ruthless Risk-Taker. Eur. JL Reform, 24, p.218.
• Stephen, J.F., 2021. A general view of the criminal law of England. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd..
• lawteacher.net (2024). Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310. Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/alcock-v-chief-constable.php [Accessed on 27th March, 2025]