Battery rule

In every social gatherings and institution, ethics and moral regarding one’s thoughts, actions and verbal expression should constantly observed to avoid any morally and physically damaging results from an inappropriate engagement of certain individuals. For social institutions and gatherings involving authority aspect, every individual especially those with superior authority must cautiously observe the said ethical principle.

Take for example the case that occurred in the Betts Lincoln-Mercury Dealer Company involving the physical damage incurred by an employee resulting from the inappropriate horse playing of the president during an office party. The sequel of the event at the office party led to the legal pursuit of Caudle, the employee, suing the president of the company for his inappropriate action leading to serious nervous damages to the former.

However, the president countered by saying that the action was part of the horseplay of the entire group during the party and that he had not intended to hurt anyone specifically the plaintiff. In the aspect of ruling for this case, one must actually and critically consider the event scenario and the ethical aspect of it. It is not clearly indicated in the case whether Caudle is involve in the collective term of the group that participated in the horseplay during the office party thus this author will consider him to be excluded.

Because of which, this author argues that the plaintiff did not participate from the horse playing thus it is very much inappropriate for the president who is involved to play the said trick on him. Another argument is that, it is a known fact that the electric auto condenser that is involved in the incident posts a risk of shock for anyone who holds it.

Because of which, playing with the said item on a very vital nervous spot mainly the back of the head right below the temporal of the brain and posterior of the spinal cord is very much inappropriate since it can lead to serious nervous damages. Because of the said arguments and reasons, this author strongly rules with the side of plaintiff wherein president Betts indeed committed an action that led to serious nervous damages though without any grave intentions. His must indeed be responsible for his actions and thus must compensate the victims for the reported damages and complications.