You Be the Judge

In the above case, Wilbur is a client at XYZ Counseling Agency who uses this company for anger management. Wilbur is now suing the counseling agency because he was physically assaulted by one of its employees. Chuck, who physically assaulted Wilbur during an anger management session; Wilbur feels that the company should be responsible for Chuck's actions.

In this case, Chuck assaulted Wilbur during a counseling session; this act can be described as an "Intentional Tort against a Person" This law protects a person from unauthorized touching, restraint, or other contact. Assault is the threat of immediate harm or offensive contact, which Chuck has brought upon Wilbur, including Battery which is also another unauthorized and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person. Hitting someone is considered battery because it is harmful. Ultimately the most important interest here is the person's reasonable sense of dignity and safety. By making a decision to hire Chuck regardless of his bad work record from being terminated from his previous job for physically assaulting another client. A week earlier before this incident the company had to warn Chuck regarding an episode where he grabbed another client by the arm and shook him. Still, they did nothing to keep Chuck from repeating the offense. This makes them more responsible

XYZ Counseling has a specific policy against violence and has disciplined employees who violate it, Although XYZ knew of Chuck's violent behavior from his past experiences this company chose to overlook these issues. Previously; five years ago Chuck was fired from another counseling agency for hitting another client. All these claims were filed against Chuck before XYZ decided to hire him. Which is considered to be Unintentional Torts (Negligence) under this doctrine of unintentional torts, also known as negligence, a person is liable for harm that is foreseeable. With Chuck past work experience XYZ knew that Chuck had his own issues and would not be able to provide the care needed for their clients but they hired him anyway, which holds them responsible for part of his actions. I think Wilbur will have a strong and successful lawsuit against Chuck and XYZ counseling agency. Wilbur has enough facts to corroborate his lawsuit on the grounds of tort negligence with XYZ mainly; because the XYZ owed a duty of care to Wilbur, and they breached this duty of care by hiring Chuck, In spite of his past work experiences that had cause him to be fired for hitting other clients in the past, Wilbur has become another one of Chuck's victims. XYZ negligent act was the proximate cause (or legal cause) of Wilbur's injuries. I think XYZ is liable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions, On the other hand, I also believe that Chuck's actions has consequences as well, Wilbur should also sue Chuck for Intentional tort which in this case could be Battery, (for example) intentionally

...