Case Study: Theory to Practice
Saranda Tanakanjanapong
BUSI 301-B04
Cendoria Dean
September 16, 2015

Personal Observation
There is always going to be a consequence of careless and inconsiderate workers as we can learn from the case study. “A CI technician accidentally rewired the system that controlled the fire sprinklers and rendered the sprinklers inoperable… and one of OC's employees left a lit cigarette in one of BTF's restrooms.” This shows that there may be a lack of training in these organizations. This accident would not have happened if employees really care about their job. However, people do make mistake and the bible teaches the concept of personal responsibility. The difference between a child and a man is his willingness to take personal responsibility for his actions. As Paul says, “When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me” (1 Corinthians 13:11). Personal responsibility is closely related to the law of sowing and reaping (Galatians 6:7–8). “Tell the righteous it will be well with them, for they will enjoy the fruit of their deeds. Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them! They will be paid back for what their hands have done” (Isaiah 3:10–11). In my opinion, both parties should accept the consequences of their own action.
General Duty CI (Computer Installers) owes BTF (Big Time Firm) a general duty to act as a reasonable prudent installer. By operating a business that advertises itself as a computer networking company, they must exhibit a level of expertise that meets this standard. They did breach that duty by failing to install the wiring in such a way as to render the fire sprinklers inoperable. The real question of liability here comes down to causation – ties to elements of negligence and duty. If CI knew that they accidentally rewired the system that controlled the fire sprinklers and rendered them inoperable, then yes they owed BTF a special relationship duty. But in this case, the company has breached its general duty. Making the fire system inoperable is a major concern the client that could be considered negligence on the part of CI.
Proximate Cause
In order to determine the CI’s liability under the concept of cause in fact, we can use a BUT FOR test. This simply asks “but for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?" If CI would have adhered to their legal duty BTF would not have suffered damages because the sprinklers would have went off to put the cigarette that OC lit out. In contrast, proximate cause looks deeper into the root cause of liability and the plaintiff must show that the defendant is the actual cause of the damages. Because OC Cleaners were violating the rules by smoking in the bathroom, they also share some of the liability in causing the damages. Proximate cause is important when it comes to determining everything CI is liable for, so that if a chain of events were to occur as a result of this faulty sprinkler system, CI would not be unfairly liable.
Liability Cut Off
CI’s liability is cut off after the court can show there is no more proximate legal cause (probable liability). OC does not assume full liability for the fire because it is not all their fault. CI failed to correct their error in the sprinkler system. If it was not for a faulty sprinkler system due to CI’s negligence, the cigarette lit by OC would not have caused damages to BTF.
A Possible Defense
OC and CI may be able to successfully argue that BTF was negligent for not hiring a new security guard. If an employee is terminated, especially on needed to safeguard company assets, it could be considered negligence on the owner’s part. This would be the equivalent of leaving a car unlocked on in a dark parking lot. OC and CI must argue that the fire would have been preventable and/or less damaging had the security guard been present.
Tort Damages and Recovery
The comments made by the sales manager of Data Management Inc. could be considered slander. These statements were not only based on false claims, but also caused the loss of important business accounts. If CI can prove that the comments were the cause of the lost accounts, the company could seek damages. A second major concern here is that Data Management is interfering with an active contract by agreeing to pay for any penalties. This deliberate interference with an active contract for financial gain would be considered tortuous. Again, CI would need to prove damages from the loss of the contract and that Data Management’s actions were the primary cause of the lost account.

Reference
Melvin, S. P., & Katz, M. A. (2015). The legal environment of business: A managerial approach: theory to practice.