Duty Of Care Towards Prisoners And Employees - Mr. Jones Case Analysis

I have a case analysis ( IRAC form ) assignment, in tort law. It’s a fictional case in a fictional country, and this country has a constitutional structure which incorporates rights which are the same as those of ECHO I already did the facts and issue, and I just need a 3 paged for the rule Note: the rule need to be written separate for each issue Note: I don’t want it written in too professional legal writing.

Facts about Mr. Jones' Detainment and Diseases

Fact: The client, Mr. Jones, was detained in a prison on a charge of theft. The prison was owned and operated by a private company called the Big Freedom Prison (BFP). While he was in prison, he was confined in a very crowded prison. Just after he was released, he finds out that he has contracted tuberculosis (TB). Although, the prison has relied on a self-reporting system, means that the presenters have to report by their self for any symptoms during incarceration, there were always underwent sputum tests, and my client was always applicants the tests, the result of his tests was lost by the prison.

Issue: Does the prison have a duty of care towards the prisoners? This question examines if the prison has a duty of care to make sure of the physical safety of the prisoners.

Also, if the prison has to make sure that no one has tuberculosis (TB).

If they have a duty of care did they breach the duty by losing my client’s results of the sputum tests that he underwent through?

Rule: The prison owes duty of care towards prisoners and it comes under the responsibility of prison authorities to look after the health related facilities of the prisoners. When the person is in incarceration for a certain specific period of time, it becomes the duty of care of the relevant authorities of prison to take responsibility of the health related issues of the prisoners. Taking into consideration, the protection of right to life under Article 2 of Human Rights, public authorities cannot interfere even if the person is a criminal (European Court of Human Rights, 2018).

It is also the duty of care of the prison authorities to scan prisoners to prevent them from diseases under similar article.

The law that applies here is negligence and relevant prison authorities have also breached the duty by losing the results of the sputum tests underwent by Mr. Jones as, proper testing and scanning is also considered as a part of proper health check-ups and losing the medical reports might delay the awareness about infectious diseases.

Application: It is the duty of the private company who is the owner of the prison as well as the government of Namibia operating CAFO, to take care of the health and life of the prisoners and thus, both the relevant authorities are required to provide compensation to Mr. Jones for life threatening disease (Osterberg & Wallinga, 2004).

Issues of Duty of Care and Responsibility

The prison authorities have the responsibility to prevent prisoners from infectious diseases such as TB, because it spreads easily in crowded or congested places. It is essential to scan for such diseases and to isolate the infected person.

The prison authorities have lost the reports of Mr. Jones and he was later on diagnosed with TB, when he was released from the prison. It means the disease has been carried over by him through others and might most probably be transferred to some others in the prison. So, it is a breach of duty on the part of prison authorities.  

Conclusion: Prison owes a duty of care towards prisoners and should take care of their health related issues and prevent them from infectious diseases.

Fact: The client, Mr. Jones, was detained in a prison on a charge of theft.

As a part of his sentence, he was to work in the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, CAFO was owned by the Government of Nambia. He contracted with several diseases at different times while working in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, CAFO, these include:

1) Brain damage, burning eyes due to inhalation of hydrogen sulfide gas

2) Severe diarrhea and abdominal cramps due to an infection by E.coli

3)Raising in his temperature to 38C, chills, pains, and confusion, due to an infection by Methicillin-resistant Styphylococcus aureus (MRSA) that was caused to him while treating the animals with antibiotics.

Issue: Does the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) have a duty of care toward her employees?

This question examines if the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) have a duty of care in providing a healthy environment for their employees.

Is there  something that the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) could do to protect her employees from inhalation of harmful gases such as hydrogen sulfide, or injury of harmful bacteria such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), that come due to the poor waste disposal, and the way they treat a animals in CAFO.

Rule: CAFO owes a duty of care towards all the employees working there, as it is the duty of care of the organization to take care of the health related facilities of the employees working in the organization. It is the responsibility of the organization to provide healthy environment to the employees in order to enhance their productivity as well as to be responsible towards them.

It is the responsibility of an organization to take initiatives to provide healthy environment to the employees and to prevent them from diseases, accidents or any other kind of hazards within the organization.

Relevant Rules and Legal Considerations

Application: CAFO owes a duty of care towards the employees and Mr. Jones was working over there, however, on the basis of his sentence, he is eligible to possess all the human rights as others. It is the duty of care of CAFO to provide healthy environment to the employees and to take care of hygiene and cleanliness to prevent them from various infectious diseases.  

In order to prevent employees from inhalation of harmful gases, the organization could provide them with the preventive masks (NHS, 2017). Additionally, staff shifts should be changed and no individual should be allowed continuously to work at a hazardous place or the place with harmful gases. Secondly, strict provisions should be framed by the organization regarding the health prevention of the employees and they should regularly be checked for health issues if any. MRSA might have been caused due to poor hygiene habits of Mr. Jones. The organization should take strict measures to improve the hygiene related habits in the workplace.  

Conclusion: CAFO owes a duty of care towards its employees and should provide healthy environment to them.

Fact: The client, Mr. Jones, was detained in a prison on a charge of theft. As a part of his sentence, he was to work in the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, CAFO was owned by the Government of Nambia. While working in CAFO he suffered Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), while watching the inhumane way that CAFO use in killing and abusing animals.

Issue: Does the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) have a duty of care toward her employees?

This question examines if the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) have a duty of care in protecting her employees from mental injuries such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) due to the brutal killing and abuse of animals.

Rule: The law here applies is also duty of care and negligence as organization owes a duty of care towards each and every employee working in the organization (EPA, 2018). It should always be informed and updated about the mental, emotional and health related issues of the employees and should take preventive and curative measures in order to keep the employees safe and healthy (Hribar, 2010).

Application: Mr. Jones suffered from PTSD because of brutal killing of animals in the CAFO. Taking into consideration, his mental strength, the relevant authorities should have changed his duty as health of workers should be the prime responsibilities of the organization (SAFLii, 2012). The individuals who possess the ability to cope up with such jobs should be kept that too after psychological tests and this case proves the negligence on part of the organization.

Conclusion: CAFO owes a duty of care towards Mr. Jones in this case, as he suffered PTSD due to their negligence as they did not have opted for psychological tests of Mr. Jones and allowed them to work on the place where animals were killed brutally.

References

EPA. (2018). What are the health effects of E. coli O157:H7? Retrieved from safewater.zendesk.com: https://safewater.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/214282698-4-What-are-the-health-effects-of-E-coli-O157-H7-

European Court of Human Rights. (2018). European Convention on Human Rights. 

Hribar, C. (2010). Understanding Concentrated environmental health. National Association of Local Boards of Health.

NHS. (2017). MRSA. Retrieved from nhs.uk: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/mrsa/

Osterberg, D., & Wallinga, D. (2004). Addressing Externalities From Swine Production to Reduce Public Health and Environmental Impacts. American journal of public health, 94(10),, 94(10), 1703-8.

SAFLii. (2012). South Africa: Constitutional Court. Retrieved from saflii.org: https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2012/30.html