Negligence Theory and Liability for Senior Living Center

Corporate Negligence

Answer 1: Corporate Negligence  

Elements of Negligence

• Duty: It is one of the criteria of negligence that makes someone liable. In other words, it signifies that every individual has a responsibility of care to another person when doing an action.
• Breach: Another requirement for negligence liability is that the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated or failed to fulfil a duty of care.
• Injury: The chance to demonstrate that someone else was to blame for the injuries, loss, or other expenses suffered by the plaintiff.
• Causation: The ability to show that a negligent act led to an injury that was caused by that act. (Geistfeld, 2020)
  
  

Application of elements

1. Duty– Corporate owes the duty towards all the individuals who are affected by their act. Lois, being the care-dependent of the Living Center will be affected if any act done by the corporation is causing injury to him.  
2. Breach– The Corporation breached this duty as they were charged with aggravated and simple assault due to the act done with Lois.
3. Injury– The negligent act of the corporation resulted in injuries in the form of paraplegia, slurred speech.
4. Causation– The injury suffered by Lois was because of the negligent act of taunting, physical abuse done by the corporation, thus establishing the element of causation.
   
   

Duty - Care managers to work towards the betterment of the patient.

Breach of Duty – Worked towards detriment of the patient as they abused her and blocker her door.

Injury - The plaintiff was physically and mentally tortured by their actions, thereby suffering from paraplegia, slurred speech, acute renal failure.

Causation – Not taking care by the professionals, their ignorance towards wellness of the patient resulted in the present condition of the patient. Eg: taking care would have avoided the physical harm that the patient had.

Professional Negligence Theory: As the professional, the staff of the owed a duty towards the patient to work for their welfare. However, this enhance level of duty was not undertaken. Rather they did not even fulfill the basic standard of care towards the patient. As a hospital their role was more significant and require them justify the profession by meeting the standards of the profession. When the patient condition got worse because the professional standard was not adhered, a clear case of professional negligence was found. 

Answer 4: Potential Liability of Parent Company 

Vicarious liability is when one person (B) is held responsible for the actions of another person (A) even though B did not do anything wrong. This is called "passive liability." As a result of the nature of their employment connection, a supervisor (such as an employer) may be held liable for the wrongdoing of one of their direct reports or associates. A vicarious liability exists when a parent company is responsible for the actions of its subsidiaries and the employers are responsible for the actions of their employees (Faqir, 2016).

Theory of Piercing the Corporate Veil

When a court concludes that the acts of a company or its directors, officers, or members are indistinguishable from those of another corporation. The court will hold the owners and directors of the parent business personally accountable for the conduct and debts of the subsidiary (Cheng-Han, Wang & Hofmann, 2019).

Application of law

Based on the above discussion on the Vicarious Liability as well as the theory of piercing of corporate veil, it is inferred that the Sunrise Senior Living of McLean, being the parent company of Quadrangle Sunrise Senior Living Center, is liable for the negligent act done by the care managers as it has been established in the above answers that all the elements of negligence are present thereby making the Living Center, Care Manager and the parent company liable for such negligent act.

Cheng-Han, T., Wang, J., & Hofmann, C. (2019). Piercing the Corporate Veil: Historical, Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. Berkeley Bus. LJ, 16, 140.

Faqir, R. S. (2016). The Criminal Liability of Parent Corporations for Acts of Its Subsidiaries under Criminal Law in Jordan: A Comparative Study. Beijing L. Rev., 7, 238.

Geistfeld, M. A. (2020). Proximate Cause Untangled. Md. L. Rev., 80, 420.