Legal Issues

Lafi PLC is a large and public company that manufactures and sells sportswear. Anyone related to this large company, be it a supplier, or a partner, or a logistics andor delivery team member, has the power to affect the image and reputation of this company. Therefore, everyone related to this company does not only have the responsibility to uphold the reputation and brand image of the company in the eyes of the public and especially competitors, but they also have the empowered authority in unspoken understanding that they are the guardians of the same (Stone, 2005).

Since Mick is the van driver responsible for the delivery of goods for Lafi Company, he is responsible for the image of the company due to the fact that for a given period of time during every delivery transaction, he is representing Lafi Company in a way. From the moment he loads material and goods for Lafi company in his van to the moment he unloads them at destination, his van represents Lafi. Important to note here however is the fact that the van belongs to Mick and he is the one who maintains is  however, such is the power of brand association that anything that goes wrong due to this van, it will affect in some way or the other on Lafi as a company as well. This is also because of the terms of the contract (Fox, 1974, and Kaufman, 2004) between Lafi and Mick, which expect Mick to work for Lafi a rgular 40 hours per week, and to stay present at Lafis premises whether there are any deliveries to be made or not.

Thus, when one day, while on a delivery run for Lafi, Micks van hits a lady and knocks her down, causing her to have a heart attack as a result of the shock, he is surely in trouble. This is because there are more factors to consider than the mere accident part of the whole incident (Fox, 1974). While it is true that accidents are just that  accidents, it is also true that Mick had been indulging in unethical behavior while on this delivery run for his employer, and had broken a law or two as well, which put the burden of the blame on Mick.

First off, despite being on duty, he was running a personal errand (delivering Christmas presents to his own family). This is simply unethical, no matter how innocent the errand is. Had he not been running this personal errand, he might never have encountered the lady on the road whom he knocked down and gave a heart attack to. If the company was to be blamed, they have no way to deny that Mick was on a personal errand because the incident took place while he was on duty for the company. Secondly, he was exceeding speed limit. This spells trouble from the very start, for both Mick, and the Lafi Company by extension. Whats most troubling is the fact that not only does the accident cause an elderly lady to have a heart attack after which she is left permanently incapacitated, all of which can be claimed in damages (Garner, p.16), Ollie, an elderly neighbor of Normas (the victims) is witness to the whole incident. To top it off, due to the shock of witnessing such an accident, she herself becomes ill with post-traumatic stress disorder (PSTD) (Satcher, 1999).

What I would advice Lafi PLC to do is to let Mick go of his job, as a public gesture of protest against his lack of responsibility toward his ethical obligation toward his job and duty. It would also make a public statement on behalf of Lafi PLC against his lack of respect for traffic laws, and thus would put Lafi PLC in a good light in front of its customers and general public. This is morally correct for Lafi PLC to do because apart from this being a matter of protecting the business, it is also a matter of Lafi PLCs right to responsible behavior on the part of its employees, in whom Lafi PLC has obviously invested it trust upon hiring.

I would advise Normas and Ollies representatives to sue Mick andor Lafi PLC for damages. I would advise Mick on the other hand, to accept his fault gracefully, plead guilty, and accept his penalty with whatever dignity that is left. The advice I have for PLC though, is that they should pay damages to Norma and Ollie not only on behalf of Mick (Wood, 2004), who probably will not have enough on him to do so himself, but also on behalf of itself (Sprack, 2006) as a company that has the publics best interest at its CSR-driven heart, and would not have let this unfortunate incident happen if it could control it.