Contemporary Ethics
The case above deals with two issues namely negligence and ethics. The client wrongly wants to sue her landlord for negligence: wrongly because as we soon discover, the injuries are fictitious. I will deal with the ethical aspect later.
This is a case of civil negligence which involves careless or ignorant behavior (Ferrell, 2006), on the part of the landlord but not intent. Negligence is often defined as:
“…not doing something which a reasonable person would do, or doing something which a reasonable person would not do (Snoeyenbos, 2001).”
For my client to win the case, she must prove four points in a court of law:
i) that the person being sued owed a duty of care
ii) he violated that duty of care
iii) due to the infringement, the person suing suffered injury or loss
iv) there is a link between the sued person’s act and the injury
Now, the client can easily prove that the landlord holds a duty of care towards all his tenants. For her to prove that the duty of care was violated is more difficult. She will have to prove in a court that the apartment stairs did not meet the required safety standard. A professional, appointed by the court usually checks out such claims by examining the object in question. If the stairs are up to standard, the case may well be dismissed but if they are not, the client will have to prove a further two points. She will have to prove that the injuries suffered by her are solely due to the apartment stairs. Lastly, she will also have to prove that there is a link between her injuries and the landlord’s actions (regarding the apartment stairs). This is proved through the ‘but for’ test which says the action would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s negligence (Pagano, 2005). If my client is successful in proving all the above, she may be liable to compensation received by the landlord.
But the main point here remains that the injuries have been fabricated by the client. In actuality, she suffered no such injuries from the stairs. If the defendant proves her wrong, there would be no issue but if she goes ahead and wins the case, there is a question of ethics.
Two issues arise here: first that it is unethical to fight a fabricated case and if I want to become a lawyer, I must follow professional ethics from the beginning i.e. since I am a student. Secondly, I owe a duty of obedience to my employers and if I lose them business by not taking this case, I may be acting unprofessionally towards my employers.
The best solution here would be to first discuss this issue with the client and try to dissuade her from going ahead with such a case e.g. try to impress upon her the risk of the landlord filing a case on her for undue mental stress or slander. If the client does not agree, I would discuss the issue with my employers. I would try to make them see that the case we are going to pursue is unethical by professional standards. If this works, well and good but if even this does not work, I may go ahead with the case. There is always the option of reporting the employers but that breaches the principle of confidentiality which is generally frowned upon by all professional communities.
References
Pagano, E. (2005).The transparency Edge.
Ferrell, O.C. (2006).Business Ethics.
Snoeyenbos, M. (2001).Business Ethics.