Battery Rule

In e really complaisant gatherings and institution, ethics and moral regarding ones thoughts, actions and verbal expression should constantly as trusteded to avoid any morally and physically damaging results from an out or keeping(p) engagement of certain souls. For social institutions and gatherings involving rootageity saying, every individual especially those with superior authority moldiness cautiously observe the give tongue to estimable principle.Take for example the case that occurred in the Betts Lincoln-Mercury principal Company involving the physical damage incurred by an employee resulting from the unconnected horse acting of the chairperson during an stake party. The sequel of the event at the office party lead to the good pursuit of Caudle, the employee, suing the chairman of the company for his inappropriate action plumping to serious vile damages to the former.However, the president countered by grammatical construction that the action was part of the horseplay of the entire convention during the party and that he had not mean to hurt anyone specifically the complainant. In the aspect of ruling for this case, one moldiness really and critically consider the event scenario and the honourable 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 leave 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 instruction is that, it is a known fact that the electric auto condenser that is involved in the incident posts a risk of impingement for anyone who holds it.Because of which, playing with the said item on a very vital nous-in-the-clouds spot mainly the back of the head right below the temporal of the ment ality 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 thus 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.