Business Torts and Ethics
With the actions of businesses being more prominent in the eyes of the public more than ever before, it is crucial that businesses remain credible. Remaining credible requires businesses to uphold four of the major types of corporate responsibility- economic, ethical, philanthropic, and legal (Scilly, 2016). In order to simply survive as a business, a company’s legal duties must remain their top priority. With such a large variety of possible violations, companies are left with a plethora of reasons to take precaution to avoid civil and criminal liability. Companies can do so by complying with the law (Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Magid, Reed, & Sheed, 2016, p. 7). This week in Contemporary Business Law, the class was given a scenario regarding a property management business dealing with a legal issue. This paper will describe the scenario, define the company’s legal obligations, differentiate among some of the potential torts that might arise from this business context, discuss ways to prevent the risk of the potential torts, lastly apply and evaluate the ethical principles and responsibilities of the business.
The Scenario
“Springfield Arms Apartments is a business that rents primarily to students. One evening, your tenant Sharon is attacked by an intruder who forces the lock on the sliding glass door of her ground-floor apartment. Sharon's screams attract the attention of Darryl, your resident manager, who comes to Sharon's aid. Together, Darryl and Sharon drive the intruder off, but not before they both are badly injured by the intruder.”

“Springfield Arms Apartments is a business that rents primarily to students. One evening, your tenant Sharon is attacked by an intruder who forces the lock on the sliding glass door of her ground-floor apartment. Sharon's screams attract the attention of Darryl, your resident manager, who comes to Sharon's aid. Together, Darryl and Sharon drive the intruder off, but not before they both are badly injured by the intruder.”

Liability and Legal Duties The actions of the intruder make them liable for the injuries caused to Sharon and Darryl as well as for the damage done to the property. According to Moore (2012), battery results in “a harmful bodily contact” (p. 1596). The intruder will face criminal charges as well as civil court for the intentional torts, and battery with intent to cause harm to the victims. The intruder should also face charges for any damages done to the property at the Springfield Arm’s Apartment complex. The scenario does not provide much detail, such as a copy of the lease or any documentation regarding Sharon’s history at the Springfield Arm’s Apartment complex; however, one could assume that the property management does carry some of the legal responsibility in this matter. For one, every company has a legal responsibility for its employees. Because Darryl is a resident manager employed by Springfield Arm’s Apartments, the business is more than likely responsible for his injuries and for compensating any time he may miss working because of such injuries. The business also has duties to protect its tenants. Although the intruder’s actions were not controllable by the property management, the business does have the ability to provide its tenants with a safe living environment and with information regarding crime in the area. It would not be a stretch for a landlord to conduct regular safety inspections, and to keep tenants informed if there is criminal activity happening near the property. The responsibility of keeping tenants safe should especially be important to a business dealing with the safety college students.
Potential Torts
First, a tort law is considered the law of civil wrongs. Tort law provides for civil rather than criminal liability. Typically, a plaintiff wants the defendant to pay for specific damages that he or she may have caused (Hudson, 2010). In the case of the Springfield Arm’s Apartment scenario, some potential torts that might arise are the tort of battery, caused by the intruder. On the other hand, because tort law is considered to be almost an act of irrational or unreasonable behavior, if Sharon wanted to attempt to take the business to court for the tort of negligence for her safety (Hudson, 2010). This could be a case where strict liability could apply as the management did not intentionally harm Sharon; however, maybe their locks have not been inspected or are not up to date. Again, the scenario is not overly specific.
Avoiding Torts
By abiding by the law and using ethical reasoning, the intruder and the business can both avoid these potential torts. Clearly, the intruder should not have broken into Sharon’s apartment and harmed her or Darryl. By avoiding this act, the intruder would not have to be prosecuted. Furthermore, the business itself can avoid this tort and potential future torts by abiding local and state safety laws and regulations put in place for property owners who are responsible for tenant’s. As mentioned above, by taking specific safety measures and creating an overall safe environment for their tenants the business can avoid potential law suits.
Ethical Principles and Responsibilities
In every business, and in this specific scenario the matter of ethics is very important. Ethics deals with moral principles. If the intruder used positive moral principles, they would not have broken into the apartment and harmed Sharon and Darryl, in the same respect, if the business used ethical reasoning to realize that they should take some sort of responsibility for their employee and tenant then that would show ethical behavior (Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Magid, Reed, & Sheed, 2016, p. 37). Formalism is an ethical principle that would conclude that the intruder is completely wrong, no matter what the circumstances were, or why they may have broken into the apartment that night. According to Formalism, certain behaviors are always wrong, and breaking into an apartment and harming others would be one of those behaviors. On the other hand, consequentialism concerns itself with the consequences of the decision rather than the decision itself. In the intruder’s case, their decision would still be considered unethical because they did something wrong, and still nothing good came out of it because people were harmed (Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Magid, Reed, & Sheed, 2016, p. 37).
Conclusion
Clearly, there are many different ways to think about the scenario we were given in class this week. There are many responsibilities for businesses to uphold, but abiding by the law is the single responsibility that will keep the business afloat. By using ethical reasoning, and abiding by the law individuals and businesses together have a much better chance of avoiding torts and potential civil or criminal law suits.

References
Hudson, D. L. (2010). The Handy Law Answer Book. Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press.
Moore, N. (2012). Intent and consent in the tort battery: Confusion and controversy. American University Law Review, 61(6), 1585- 1654.
Pagnattaro, M. A., Cahoy, D. R., Magid, J. M., Reed, O. L., & Sheed, P. J., (2016). The Legal and Regulatory Environment of Business (17th ed.). Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection database.
Scilly, M. (2016). Four Types of Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/four-types-corporate-social-responsibility-54662.html