Self-Defense

Case Study

            Individuals have the right to defend themselves also there limits to what a person can do in self- defense. For example, the law does not allow an individual to shoot someone because of a small fight.  Individuals have the right to protect themselves from any physical harm and they can do so in self –defense without being liable for any crime. Self-defense is viewed as response where there is no alternative rather uses defensive force.  Brutus was just defending himself since he was placed in a situation which demanded him to choose between defending the female patron or allow Jack Daniel to continue assaulting her. Also, the patron had the chance to withdraw from the act before matter got worse rather Jack continued to push Brutus. Jack attempted to punch Brutus and this made Brutus respond by using force in self-defense. Though self – preference is not the right to do rather it is viewed as an excuse. 

             Issues of liability come in when it comes to an individual’s fighting in the workplace. In most cases the person who started the attack should be the one to have direct liability on the victim, such liabilities includes expenses for the injuries and damaged properties. Apart from the attacker, there is also a higher possibility for liability among other people. Under the legal theories, the employer has liability to the person who has been attacked. For example, the attack on Brutus and Patron occurred at the bar meaning that it created liability for the employer which is premises liability theory. Whether the attack involved the client, employee or anyone else the employer will be responsible for that. Sharon will be responsible for the attack since Brutus was at the line of duty during the attack. Liability of negligent occurs when an employer has the full knowledge that the worker is capable of creating violence. The legal theories allow the employers to dismiss those employees who engage in violence in order to minimize such acts in the company. Even when an employer hires an employee from an independent contractor, he or she can be responsible for the misconduct of the employee. The reason to impose the liability on the owner who has a connection with the independent contractor and with the employee such that he knows the independent contractor is the boss of the employee. Violence at worked creates a major impact leading to financial problems, physical and psychological problems to the victims. It also affects the company as whole, staffs, and families.

            The bar will be held accountable for any harm by Brutus since according to the legal theories  law institution have indicated that workers should be held liable for any harm inflicted on the clients. Under a legal doctrine, an employer is held accountable for the wrong doings of the staff. This type of rule is applied when the violence took place during the time the employee was working in the company or outside doing his or her job meaning that employer will be liable if the employee was on doing his or her job or doing company business outside the premises.  In the first incident, Sharon will hold legally responsible since Brutus and Jack broke into a fight in the workplace, in the second incidence where Brutus met patron on the street, Sharon will be responsible for acts and carelessness of her employee. The employer will be liable if the injury caused by the employee is among the business risks. In this case, Sharon can be held liable since Brutus was not acting independently and he was not helping the female patron out of personal motive rather he was doing his job as a bouncer (ScholarsKlearman, 2016). If Sharon will be sued under the legal theory of respondent superior, the patron would have to show that it is the responsibility of Sharon to have known that Brutus can cause harm at the bar. According to legal theory any client attacked by any of your staffs can sue the employer for not verifying the qualities of an employee whether he or she can cause harm to others or continue keeping them in your company and you have learnt that there are capable of causing harm to your clients which is referred to negligent retention.  This rule will apply even what your employees do outside the job. This rule also holds the employees responsible for employees’ violent actions such as murder, rape, and robbery. This rule can only be applied where the employer act carelessly that is being aware that the applicant is capable of causing and the employer go ahead in employing him or her (Csiernik, 2014).

            The bar should come up with rulers and policies that there should be zero tolerance of violence either verbal or non-verbal in the workplace. The employer should ensure that all staffs, new visitors, and clients are aware of this policy and any employee who is reported to misconduct should be punished immediately. The bar owner should encourage her workers to report violence incidences and come up with ways of reducing or eliminating such risks. Also, the company should brief the employees occasionally to address violent issues such as preserving safety, showing support for the affected staff and facilitating recovery. Sharon should have a good plan for maintaining security in the bar this will include her establishing a connection with law enforcement representative who can help her identify ways to reduce or do away with violence issues at the bar.  The employer should ensure that the supervisors are trained and have the skills to handle and prevent violence in the company.  It is important to alert the police whenever such an attack happens this will help to establish your rights in both criminal and civil cases. Also it important to have witness who saw the whole scene, collect their information in case you will need them to act as your witness (Kaplin, 2013)

            The company should have to perform background checks when employing workers. They should make their policy to verify background check of the applicant before hiring them to their company by double checking on their information on the curriculum vitae. The employer will be able to get rid of dangerous characters and these will help the employer to show that he or she was careful in hiring practices. When hiring individuals who will have more public contact the employer should be careful since any misconduct done by the workers he or she will be held responsible. Also, the employer should get rid of employees who are capable or attempted to harm others.  The employer can be held responsible for keeping such a worker in his or her company (Steingold, 2017).

             In conclusion violence at the workplace should not be ignored.  The increasing numbers of violence cases should be a red signal to employees and employers that such incidence can also occur in their company.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 Csiernik, R. (2014). Workplace wellness: Issues and responses. Toronto, Ontario : Canadian.

Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2013). The law of higher education: A comprehensive guide to legal implications of administrative decision making. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.

ScholarsKlearman, S. J. (2016). Elements of Nevada Legal Theories. Cork: BookBaby.

Steingold, F. S. (2017). The Employer's Legal Handbook: Manage Your Employees & Workplace Effectively. NOLO.