Fresha Trading Arm vs Family of the Bereaved Employees as a Civil and Criminal - Case Study Example

CRIMINAL LAW Introduction The law provides guidelines by which society live by ensuring harmony and cohesion. The law aids in the nabbing of any criminal who violates the stipulated framework. Criminal law is a remarkable body of law that entirely handles crime. Criminal law regulates the act or omissions of an individual that would threaten, endanger, or even harm the lives or health of other people (Garland, McEwan 2012). On the other hand, criminal law differs from civil law as civil law concentrates on dispute resolution while criminal law concentrates on deterrence and retribution. However, any person who violates the criminal law doctrines, encounter serious consequences. Criminal law has five main objectives which include; retribution, incapacitation, restoration, rehabilitation and deterrence. Criminal law has some elements which include; proof of a guilty act and the intent or the guilty mind. The guilty act revolves around the physical element in the crime. This would include a threat, action, omission to act. The person who permeates the physical action has to have a legal duty of care which arises through various means. The legal duty of care comes to be through a legal contract, a blood relation, a voluntary undertaking or through one’s official position. On the other hand, a guilty mind implies that the wrong doer had the intent to commit the crime (Criminal law 2012). This indicates that the crime had motive, and this is evident as the wrong doer is aware of the consequences of the actions but decides to go ahead. Strict liability accompanies the doctrine of the guilty mind. For any criminal case to hold a water tight case before a judge, intent has to eminent. The intention of this paper is to illustrate the breaches laws, and the avenues open to the defendant’s family. In addition, the evidence required before a state judge and how the company accused will defend itself against the allegations. The Fresha bakery and harvest time Ltd commonly known as Fresha’s trading arm are facing charges under the health and safety at work Act. Employment is a legal contract binding both the employee and the employer. This implies that the employment contract is enforceable by law in case of any discrepancy. In addition to the common law doctrines governing employment, law practitioners have an employment code of conduct. The employees code of conduct seeks to regulate the employment contract and enhance that the employees rights and freedoms. The health and safety Act approve a code of practice with certain practical regulations. These regulations thoroughly define the employment contract in totality. The provisions of the health and safety act clearly define the place of work, the employer, the premises, the plant and equipment as well as the employees (Klein & Grobey 2012). The fundamental objective relayed by the health and safety Act is the provision that each and every employee has a duty to ensure that the place of work is safe. This implies that the employer has to have the welfare of the employees in mind and ensure that their health is not at any risk whatsoever. The health and safety Acts bind the employer to provide a safe working environment away from any hazards. Additionally, in the case of eminent danger, the employer has to relay efficient information to employees and provide them with safety equipments. On the other hand, the employees have to take sufficient care to negate any health risks. This implies that the employees have to avoid any risky situations to the best of their ability and knowledge. The case between Fresha’s trading arm and the bereaved family members of the employees revolves around the health and safety Act. The case arises from the fact that the employer has a legal duty of care emanating from the employment contract. This implies that employers have to do all in their capacity to ensure that the employees are safe. Additionally, the health and safety Act seek to ensure that a conducive working environment is prevalent and both the employees and employers ensure safety in the place of work (Purnhagen 2012). Breach of contract The issue at hand revolves around negligence of the employers resulting to death. The family and relatives of the deceased employees have a water tight case. This is because; there is a legal bond between the employers and the employees enforced by the contract. The employers in Fresha’s trading arm had an obligation to ensure that the employees were safe from all hazards. The fact that there oven was hot is a responsibility bestowed on the employers on the company to ensure that the duty of care prevails. In addition, the employees were not aware that the oven was still hot when they were entering. This implies that there is some information that was not disclosed to the employee’s pertaining the degrees of heat in the oven. This displays negligence from the employer’s side as the employer insisted that the oven should be in use two hours immediately after it had reached a maximum of 260 degrees. The specified cooling time indicates 12 hours fact the employer already knew. By subjecting the employees to such adverse conditions, death was eminent. This displays gross negligence emanating from the employers side. On the other hand, the employer knew that the oven needs four employees to handle the tasks in the oven. With this knowledge, the employer subjected two people to handle the tasks of four people resulting in overworking the employees which is also a felony (Delgado 2012). The employees require protective gear while handling plant or machinery. This is a requirement under the health and safety Act. The provisions under this statute require that the employer provide all essential protective gear to the employee to negate any injury in the eventuality of an accident. In this particular case, the employers of Fresha trading arm were negligent and failed to avail protective gear to the employees. This is a clear violation of law stipulations and these actions amounts to gross negligence and a breach of the legal duty of care. In addition, during the trial, Mr. Masters who is the company’s chief engineer conceded failing to issue the employee with working permits. This also indicts the company on grounds of gross negligence to perform the required duties and in the required time. Additionally, on the day of the tragedy, one of the managements head admitted wishing to go home early to watch a game. Mr. Mayes also admitted having a challenge at work but also saying that due to the lucrative package the challenge would be easily handled. It is apparent that waiting for the oven to cool to conducive temperatures would cost the company roughly $ 1120 US dollars. This implies that the gross negligence was a result of evading loss that the company would otherwise have incurred (Higgins 2012). Burden of proof The burden of proof is the liability befalling the plaintiff to proof that there was harm resulting from the actions of the accused (Crooks 2012). However, the burden of proof exhibits disparity between civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the plaintiff has the responsibility to proof that the accused has a duty of care. In addition, the plaintiff has to prove that the accused negligently caused harm either physically or legally warranting damages payment. The objective of civil cases is to ensure that the plaintiff receives compensation to restore the earlier status. On the other hand, criminal cases have a severe burden of proof where the claimant has to proof beyond reasonable doubt that a wrong was committed. In a criminal case, the parties involved have the responsibility to prove that the wrong was actually committed beyond any reasonable doubt. The family of the deceased has a water tight case against the company. The case can either take a civil or a criminal perspective. This is because, family can either demand for compensation or punishment. In the instance of compensation, this will be a civil case while punishment prevails in criminal cases (Jaros 2012). Civil cases only require evidence implicating the defendant. This will not be a hard task given the prevailing circumstances in this case. Civil cases require that the plaintiff depict the legal duty of care, how the defendant contravened the duty of care and how this actions or omissions lead to loss. Legal duty of care emanates from a binding contract. The employment contract creates the legal duty of care binding the company to the well being of its employees. The actions of the company’s management display gross negligence from various quarters. For instance, according to the health and safety Act, the employers should provide safety gear to the employees. In this particular case, Fresha trading arm failed to meet this very basic requirement. Additionally, the company’s management was fully aware of the temperature in the oven after only two hours of cooling. Exposing the employees to life threatening situations that eventually led to death indicates that the company’s management was negligent (Stockdale & Piasecki 2012). At no one point can the company’s management defend their actions. The only detrimental option at the disposal of the bereaved family members is to sue for manslaughter. This avenue is commonly known as involuntary manslaughter. This is a criminal case where the family members would be suing seeking to punish the company’s management. Involuntary manslaughter is a case where death is a result of indirect motive to kill another person. In this case, the company’s management would have to answer to very direct questions relating to the death of the two employees. Conclusion Law is an important doctrine in society. This is because; law allows the citizens of a nation to seek justice and fairness. In addition, law negates negligent behavior among people in society or in institution. Law has specific Acts to handle various issues or situations. For instance, the health and safety act specifically handles those in employment. It is vital that the employers provide a conducive work environment to the employees. This entails ensuring that the employees are not in any form of danger whatsoever. The employees as well have to ensure that they avoid any threatening situations during the employment period. The case between Fresha trading arm and the family of the bereaved employees is both a civil and criminal case. The company display acts of gross negligence and should be accountable of their actions. Reference list 'Criminal law - federal habeas review under aedpa - sixth circuit interprets "clearly established federal law" narrowly. -- Bunch v. Smith, 685 F. 3d 546 (6th Cir. 2012)' 2013, Harvard Law Review, 126, 3, pp. 860-867, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2013. Crooks, Jw 2012, 'Fair labor fraud: the peculiar interplay of civil rico and the federal minimum wage act', Columbia Law Review, 112, 8, pp. 2153-2192, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2013. Delgado, R 2012, 'Four reservations on civil rights reasoning by analogy: the case of latinos and other nonblack groups', Columbia Law Review, 112, 7, pp. 1888-1915, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2013. Garland, F, & McEwan, J 2012, 'Embracing the overriding objective: difficulties and dilemmas in the new criminal climate', International Journal Of Evidence & Proof, 16, 3, pp. 233-262, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2013. Higgins, A 2012, 'Open door disclosure in civil litigation', International Journal Of Evidence & Proof, 16, 3, pp. 298-322, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2013. Jaros, D 2012, 'Perfecting criminal markets', Columbia Law Review, 112, 8, pp. 1947-1991, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2013. Klein, S, & Grobey, I 2012, 'Debunking claims of over-federalization of criminal law', Emory Law Journal, 62, 1, pp. 1-120, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2013. Mayrell, RC 2012, 'Blowing the Whistle on Civil Rights: Analyzing the False Claims Act as an Alternative Enforcement Method for Civil Rights Laws', Texas Law Review, 91, 2, pp. 449-477, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2013. Purnhagen, K 2012, 'Principles of European Private or Civil Law? Principles of European Private or Civil Law? A Reminder of the Symbiotic Relationship between the ECJ and the DCFR in a Pluralistic European Private Law', European Law Journal, 18, 6, pp. 844-867, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2013. Stockdale, M, & Piasecki, E 2012, 'The Safety-valve: Discretion to Admit Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings', Journal Of Criminal Law, 76, 4, pp. 314-335, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 23 February 2013. Read More