3115.211 Business Law Assessment 3 : Problem-solving exercise | Massey University

3115.211 Business Law Assessment 3

Problem Scenario:

This scenario involves a dispute between a serviced apartment owner ‘Athena’ and a serviceprovider as included in the apartment ‘Titan Security LTD’. In this scenario, staff hired by Titan Security have negligently caused damage to the extent of $75 000 on the apartment owner’s vehicle. The two employees ‘Persephone and Demeter’ caused the damage whilst under the influence of alcohol and whilst not having permission to drive the vehicle.

Athena wishes to sue Titan Security for negligence, however Triton have denied liability as they do not hold a contract with Athena, but with the apartment building developers.This report will advise action for Athena, using supporting authority, to determine which grounds she could sue Titan and if she is likely to succeed.

Discussion:

The main concept which can be explored to determine which grounds Athena stands on is tort law. The concept of tort law is to amends a wrong done to a person and provide compensation from the wrongful act of another usually through monetary compensation.Although tort law can be split into 3 categories, I will discuss negligent torts and liability torts in relation to this case to provide advice.

Liability Torts.

Athena has experienced goods damage by employees of Titan Security, the actions of the employees have interfered with the legal right possessed by Athena. Athena has the legal right to park her vehicle in a safe and secure car park, the role of security guards is to provide a service in which the owner’s vehicles are under surveillance to mitigate and identify risk of damage or theft.

The security guards are authorised to enter and operate the vehicles under their surveillance only in the event of fire, however this was not the circumstance and therefore the employees wrongful act includes both theft (through entering and operating vehicle without permission) and damage as a result.Titan Security LTD is the employer of Persephone and Demeter, in which they pay them in order to provide a service of protection of the vehicles in the designated area.Titan Security LTD provides a service to the apartment building, this service is provided to Athena by the Apartment building as part of her ‘serviced apartment’.

The wrong-doing undertaken by Persephone and Demeter, meant that they did not carry out the action of protecting the vehicles under their surveillance. This is the action they are paid to do, and through neglecting to do this on behalf of Titan Security, has meant that Titan Security as a company has failed to provide the service they are contracted to do.

As the company has failed to provide a service it is contracted to do, it can be concluded that Titan Security LTD would be liable for the actions carried out by their employees' Persephone and Demeter.
Tort of negligence.

In order to found an action for negligence it is necessary to established 3 elements

1. The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care.

Duty of care owed by Titan Security to all serviced apartment owners including Athena, employees Persephone and Demeter knew that their role was to provide security and safety for vehicles on behalf of Titan Security, and as they did not do this, Titan Security was not able to deliver the service they were contracted for. Employees Persephone and Demeter also owe the company Titan Security duty of care for quality workmanship that meets the job description outlined in their contracts.

2. There was a breach of that duty of care.

Persephone and Demeter did not provide the service they were employed to undertake and as a result of this Titan Security also did not fulfil their contract to the apartment building. Persephone and Demeter did not undertake thought that operating the vehicle could result in injury to the plaintiff, hence a breach of duty of care.

3. That the plaintiff suffered a loss caused by the breach of duty and the loss thus suffered is not too remote from the tortious act of the defendant

The plaintiff has suffered lost to the extent of $75 000, this loss suffered is caused as a direct result of a breach of duty of care.
The plaintiff (Athena) is able to provide evidence for all 3 elements.
The plaintiff is able to show that the negligent act was the cause of the loss suffered.
The accident was the cause of Titan Security Employees, if Titan Security employees were correctly following their work duties the accident would not have happened.

Conclusion:

In the present case, the requirements laid down in the Cox v. Ministry of Justice case are met.

Titan Security Itd., carries on activities in furtherance of its aims.

The aims are commercially motivated, so there is bar to the imposition of vicarious liability.

Security guards who work in facilities where a security service is provided by Titan Security, are integrated into the operation of the company. This is due to the acts assigned to employees provide an integral role in the service the company provides.

These employees are situated in facilities contracted to Titan Security, they are in a position where they are expected to undertake quality workmanship, however as the two employees were not under the supervision of a supervisor or senior employee, there is risk of negligent acts being committed is possible - especially in the case where there is a certain level of employee dissatisfaction as in this case.

Athena's vehicle was damaged as a result of negligence by Persephone and Demeter, who were carrying out tasks assigned to them by Titan Security at the time of incident.

Therefore, Titan Security is therefore liable to Athena and their claim of denied liability will be dismissed by the court and Athena's lawsuit investigation will be continued.

Going forward from here, Athena has grounds to sue Titan Security in negligence in duty of care and liability.

There is a high chance Athena will be successful in her attempt to sue Titan Security for damages to her vehicle due to the large volume of prosecutable evidence.