Week Three Homework
1. The public policy, as it involves giving privilege to employer references, is one in which many states have begun to provide liability protection for employers so long as the employers provide information based on facts. An employer, in order to be free from liability, must also have not acted with malicious intent. If an employer meets these guidelines then any statement concerning the reference of an employee or former employee can be considered privileged (Bethel University, 2011, pp. 124-125).
2. The answer to this question is not as simple as it might seem. If one looks at it from the perspective of what is fair in Belanger’s opinion, it is safe to assume that he does not think it is fair. Now turning the…show more content… In the case of Computer Installers Inc. (CI), there was a breach of duty that occurred when the fire sprinklers were rewired accidently. A direct result of the breach of duty was the determination of a “cause in fact” due to the damage created by the fire, to Big Time Firm’s facility, which likely would have been much less severe had the sprinkler system worked correctly (Bethel University, 2011, pp. 133-134).
2. The importance of the “cause in fact” versus “proximate cause” is established through the ability to detect which is most applicable in this case. In order to establish cause in fact, one need only utilize the “but for test” thereby asking the question, had it not been for (but for) the breach by CI, then BTF would not have suffered such extensive damage. In order to establish proximate cause, two other facts have to be established which in this case will decrease the liability of CI. BTF would have to prove CI was the closest-in-proximity cause of the, which they were not in this case. Due to this fact, the level of liability of CI should be decreased because both cause in fact and proximate cause can be established concerning Office Cleaners Inc. (OC) involvement in the accident (Bethel University, 2011, pp.…show more content… One possible tort to consider in this case is tortious interference with existing contractual relationship. In order for CI to recover damages under this tort Data Management Inc. would have had to specific knowledge concerning the contract between CI and City Hospital, have had actively interfered with said contract, and caused damages to CI which could be identified. A person might think at first instance that defamation could have been committed by the sales manager of Data Management but it was not. Even though what the sales manager said was negative in regards to CI, it was his opinion and not actually a verifiable fact (Bethel University, 2011, p.