Civil Rights: The Fight to be Equal with God

Selma_to_Montgomery_MarchesTo be discriminated against in America is so common that those who live in the wake of it come to expect it in some form or another daily if they are awakened to see it. In fact, to be black in America is rough, difficult to be so; however, the problem is not the people who are progenitors of racism and discrimination it is the people who believe themselves equal to the whites perception of themselves. This is not to say that in any way should so called blacks be continually mistreated, or to place themselves in harms way; however, to come to a realistic view and see that if white people see themselves as God in their own eyes, and they rule the country—then also in their eyes every single person that comes to America willingly or not is considered to be, or should become a servant. Consequently,  there is a problem with thinking that everyone should be a servant, and the problem with that thought is those who feel that way have a tendency to mistreat people. Another view is that people who are descendants of slave owners typically have a mindset that America, the nation is theirs because they built it, and that if their money paid for the country to become great; then  regardless of how they came about that money while committing immoral acts against mankind in their minds they are God, that is, God has the money, God owns the land, God writes the policy, God is America’s Dream, and because of this thinking of themselves as God by the white people others should just look over the fact that GOD is racist. In this article there is discussion concerning current policy in regards to civil rights initiatives so called blacks pursuit to become like God.

The Fight to be like God

Of course, today, with President Obama’s position as head of the country some people  may consider that there is not discrimination any longer, or that the country has had a breakthrough since he took office, however, the election of a mixed race only adds fuel to the fact that Obama is half black and half God to the whites, or rather, a pawn to be used by those who to many in their own minds are GOD. In explanation, the CEO of the National Policy Institute, Sam Dickson (2014) spoke concerning the policy set  during the writing of the Declaration of Independence for the country’s break with their motherland Britain, In his video, “America: The God that Failed”, he said that the section of the declaration which speaks about ‘inalienable rights’ was taken off the paper of Britain’s document and placed into the American one. In that he stated that “a man without a country” cannot possibly have the type dedication to the cause of those who call America their home and built it (Dickson, 2014). Speaking frankly,  Dickson is saying that no one can be equal with God–one nation under God rule. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, was created from legislature in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that mentions rhetoric such as ‘alienable rights given by God—life , liberty and pursuit of freedom’, and ,’ all men are created equal’; however, at the time of the signing did not include blacks. Further, a realistic view of this is that no one can be what God says he is not—equal or otherwise, and it is a fair statement to say that words written by God becomes law. Consequently, here one should be reminded that the three-fifth human clause has yet to be amended. It is the case that great strides have been made as  result of rallies of civil disobedience to God, and notably the subservient blacks did not ask for much.

Initiatives in the Fight to be like God

Dye (2010) wrote that there are differences of opinion concerning racism in the country where whites think not much of it and do not think it a problem, and blacks see it differently stating there is a serious problem with racism (Dye, 2010).  Although, civil rights issues most popular are covered in the legislation there are others that have yet to be such as police brutality which is really brutality by God in uniform and the right to not be murdered in the streets, unarmed like dogs is an ongoing pursuit. Hence, the initiatives set pertaining to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is paled in comparison to these unsolved. More specifically, civil pursuits of equality  to be like God have been broad and include many milestones in the rights of people of color in all areas of living—mainly protection against discrimination for:  (a) publics places, but not the right to assemble peaceably, but also includes equal access to schools and or equal access to, restaurants, restrooms, (b) outlaw of Jim Crowe laws which prevented access to voting, (c) employment for black people and equal pay standards, and (d) housing which include mortgage lending discrimination and the tendency for landlords to be slum lords. Presently, however, there have been several amendments to the act which now include protection to women in the work place and working while pregnant, right to choice of healthcare, gay or sodomite marriage rights, right to not be bullied, and several court related rights that are written also but are still unequal in quality and perception in the pursuit to be God’s equal. For example, although there is legislation to state that negroes can work along side God instead of being relegated to back doors, cleaning God’s toilet or watching God’s children black women can now work alongside white women and may be as  qualified even more so in some cases or equally as qualified but still make less than their non black colleagues. Additionally, black women and men are lowest paid who work along side their white colleagues, and who all are degreed status; however, here is where the inequality lies, that is, blacks chosen last over whites and even if chosen are paid considerably less than whites and this occurrence can happen in the hiring process. In explanation consider the following scenario:

A local auto parts company is hiring for a management position. After the interviews, however, the Human Resources Department has narrowed the search for a manager down to two candidates who both hold the degreed status required for the position, and they both have the required amount of management experience needed– their names are Christopher Columbus, and Michael Spears. Hence, unable to decide between the two the hiring manager calls both in for a second interview. In the interviews; however, no salary is ever discussed, but  in a meeting between the hiring manager and her boss is where the salary for the position was initially decided that the position would pay $32,000 per year. Additionally, after the interviews the team decides that they will not hire Christopher Columbus and call Michael in for a third and final interview where they will offer his package at that time. Subsequently, at the interview they tell Michael that the position pays $10.00 an hour which is $19,200 per year instead of the $32,000 a year that the hiring managers had previously planned to offer. Hence, this begs the question and asks why? It is the case, that not only is Michael an African American but the team sees that as a chance to save money, and decided that he has the skills needed to fit the job description; however, their decision to not pay him equally as unto the white candidate because of his race is discrimination.

The Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness equal to God

How unfortunate, that anyone living in a country as great as America would be subjugated to such biases and discrimination, and one could say that the white man was discriminated against as well, however, the opportunity will await the white over black in greater measure. Moreover,  this type discrimination is difficult to prove and applicants should obtain the ability to seek out information regarding pay in a field or for positions before applying. Generally, however, in the interview applicants are discouraged from raising questions about pay before the subject is brought up. Hence, this occurrence removes any chance of the applicant being warned concerning the agenda against them. In his address concerning women and equal pay discrimination, President Obama stated that unequal pay is not just a woman’s issue but a family issue and the aforementioned scenario addresses that more so, because men are still the heads of the household in many cases, and although in so called black families there are women who are forced into the role of head of the house there is a need for men to be paid as much as white men in the workplace so they too can take care of their families.

President Obama wrote concerning the  Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act:

Because while this bill bears her name, Lilly knows this story isn’t just about her. It’s the story of women across this country still earning just 78 cents for every dollar men earn – women of color even less – which means that today, in the year 2009, countless women are still losing thousands of dollars in salary, income and retirement savings over the course of a lifetime. But equal pay is by no means just a women’s issue – it’s a family issue. It’s about parents who find themselves with less money for tuition or child care; couples who wind up with less to retire on; households where, when one breadwinner is paid less than she deserves, that’s the difference between affording the mortgage – or not; between keeping the heat on, or paying the doctor’s bills – or not. And in this economy, when so many folks are already working harder for less and struggling to get by, the last thing they can afford is losing part of each month’s paycheck to simple discrimination. So in signing this bill today, I intend to send a clear message: That making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone. That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it’s not just unfair and illegal – but bad for business – to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability. And that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory, or footnote in a casebook – it’s about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives: their ability to make a living and care for their families and achieve their goals (Obama, 2015).

Notably, the pursuit in the fight to be equal to God is ongoing for both genders of the black race, and future policies should reflect change in the areas of: (a) three fifth human amendment, (b) raising the minimum raise, (c) equal fair pay for black men and women, according to their educational level, and more thought and effort placed on anti-bullying legislation to include police brutality.

In the strides to become equal to God, blacks have not gained strides equal to whites in the fifty plus years of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 execution. Moreover, in the shadow of the attitude of  whites in America blacks made a huge mistake in the supposed fight of equality, that is, that God cannot accept the people who they crossed the Atlantic to steal them  from their families, a people of culture, of a continent of African people who were sold into slavery. In addition, so called blacks would be wise to remember that in the eyes of America the slaves cannot be equal to their master whether in education, the workplace, health or welfare, that the servant is not equal to their God, and pursuit to find a place equal is for the white man a dream but for the black man in America who covet such a place has become a nightmare. That a said the pursuit continues.

Related Articles

 America: The God that Failed

Dye, T.R. (2010).  Understanding public policy (13th ed.).  Longman: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN: 9780205757428. Custom ISBN: 9781256054160

 Strengthening Civil Rights 

Civil Rights Issues

Business Law and Ethics|Legal Underpinnings of Business Law

images (5)  Today it is apparent that businesses in the United States have had problems with their owners’ and managers’ practices of being transparent and free from fraudulent activity concerning  dealings with partners, employees and consumers. It is the case, that many people have been harmed because of a business collapse under unethical leadership tactics.

In explanation, of unethical leadership tactics within a company the repercussions of such activities can be detrimental to not only consumers, but investors and employees. In preparedness for these kinds of situations the United States Congress has developed, and passed laws to thwart shady dealing by shady corporations; such as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and the Consumer Protection Act of 2010; as well as, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [CFPB] which for all purposes as noted by Seaquest (2012), “Increased oversight of the financial industry and was a preventative measure to risk taking and deceptive practices in areas such as mortgage lending” [The Regulatory Environment Section; para 1].

Concerning regulating the business environment –standards have been set that would protect both business and consumer. In this article, however, the businesses are deemed small and there is discussion of the Tinker and Taylor’s Home Security Service owners who have taken on certain business titles and by law have specific responsibilities when they breach a contract; such as is found in (a) Sole Proprietorship, (b) General Partnership, (c) Limited Partnership [LP], (d) Corporation [Corp], and (e) Limited Liability Company [LLC].

In business law, both parties enter into a contractual or verbal  agreement which says that Tinker’s Home Security Service install their systems free and monitor them monthly for a standard cost of 48.00 plus applicable sales tax per state allowance. In the first analogy of sole proprietorship Tinker and Taylor’s Home Security Service is being sued. Here are the problems with sole proprietorship as determined by the people at SBA.gov (2014) who state the disadvantages are that they could face sole liability (SBA, 2014) which makes sense since they own the business by and for themselves.

Here are the disadvantages to starting this type of business, but can also suffice to conditions that they could face in court:

  1. Unlimited personal liability. Because there is no legal separation between you and your business, you can be held personally liable for the debts and obligations of the business. [In this case, a suit takes money to defend oneself, that is, in the case of obtaining an attorney].
  2. Hard to raise money. Sole proprietors often face challenges when trying to raise money. [In this case, a sole proprietor’s money is not separated from home and business in the instance of cash flow. In essence, most people who own such businesses could consider this business their sole livelihood so extra money for court fees, unless, the owner sues a customer is out of pocket].
  3. Heavy burden. The flipside of complete control is the burden and pressure it can impose. You alone are ultimately responsible for the successes and failures of your business. [Hence, it is the case that a failure for the business could be a law suit which can impose harm to the business; such as damages paid out] [Disadvantages proprietorship Section] [Emphasis added].

In the case of the General Partnership for Tinker and Taylor’s Home Security Service establishing the business was relatively an easy one there was not application with the state and all was needed was for the partners basically to know how to install the systems, however, since the suit is against them the partners cannot agree to which the suit should attributed. After all they are both owners of the entity and since both own both are responsible. There are risks that can be gathered here, or rather, be taken heed of for future reference. In the article, “Sole Proprietorship and General Partnerships are Risky Business” the pronunciation of the risk stated, “If you are a co-owner of a business, and you have not formally created a corporation, LLC, limited liability partnership, limited partnership, or a limited liability limited partnership, you are operating a general partnership. This means that you have unlimited, personal liability for all of the businesses debts, including the acts of employees. In addition, in a general partnership, you also have unlimited, personal liability for the acts of all of the other owners” [Partnership Liability is a Major Risk Section; para. 1]. Therefore, the risk of being General Partner is provoked in the lawsuit. It is the case, that the acts or non-acts of either are the responsibility of both.

For example, in the initial installation of the alarm Partner 1 damages a wall in the home of the consumer and does a shabby job with the alarm so that he malfunctions often. Partner 2 states that damage to the wall is not his responsibility since he did not do the installation because Partner 1 took the call and the repair to the wall should come from Partner 1 since he started the business. Partner 1 screams that he cannot afford such a hit on his already taxed expenses and so forth. In reality Partner 1 did the damage, but since they are partners the damage belongs to both.

In review of the Limited Partnership [LP], the owners of the Tinker and Taylor’s Home Security Service the lawsuit may be more favorable. In this instance what comes to mind would be a sign to tell consumers that ‘Owners are not responsible for damage resulting from installation’ or something more outstanding to inform the customer that basically they are not paying for it, and for this reasons consumers’ should beware of getting professional help. However, if one knows their neighbor is good at what he does who needs assurance? So here is a good reason for a more acceptable outcome in court, according to Stephanie Morrow (2005), author of the article “LLC or LP: What’s Best for Your Business?”

She wrote:

An LP has one or more general partners and one or more limited partners. The general partners participate in management and have 100% liability for partnership obligations. Limited partners cannot participate in the management and have no liability for partnership obligations beyond their capital contributions, protecting them against personal liability for the partnership’s debts and other obligations. They do, however, receive a share of the profits for their involvement as limited partners. Many partnerships are formed as LPs because the limited liability is attractive to passive investors. It is often easier to market limited partner interests as an investment and general partners can raise money without involving outside investors in the management of the business. Assets are also protected in an LP. Unlike a corporation, which allows a shareholder’s stock to be confiscated in a personal lawsuit, an LP has provisions that protect a partner’s interest from being taken away when that partner is sued personally [What is an LP Company Section; para.1].

In essence, in a limited partnership the implications here are that there is no liability beyond that of their contributions. In other words, shareholders have no say in the functioning of management from day to day. Hence, for the Tinker and Taylor’s Home Security Service their breach of contract lies with the owners, Tinker and Taylor not the members who contribute and neither their investment in the company as stated above. For example, Partner 1 is accused of defrauding the customer in their free installation agreement and receives a bill that ultimately goes unpaid and is now on the customer’s credit is not the fault of the partners who have limited claim to the company but the actual owners.

Tinker and Taylor’s Home Security Service, as a Limited Liability Company [LLC] and a Corporation are similar, in that a Limited Liability Company has some of the same exact features as a Corporation, but the question is would how would a breach of promise affect the LLC, or would the two be affected the same? In an LLC company Morrow (2005) wrote:

An LLC is a hybrid business organization that mixes the best of corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietorships. Each owner (also called a member) of an LLC has limited liability like a stockholder of a corporation. LLCs allow any entity, including individuals, partnerships, trusts, estates, corporations, or other LLCs to be owners. They also offer greater flexibility than corporations—like no limits on the number of members—yet they have the tax advantages of a partnership, such as pass-through taxable income and losses [What is a Limited Liability Company? Section; para.1].

So it is fair to say that as an LLC all members are not privy to lawsuits. In essence, we can see that in larger corporations although managers in smaller entities might be privy to lawsuits not all of the players are included in these, such as breach of contract. However, big corporal giants can be included in class action suits such as discrimination and some class action suits are privy to lawsuits such as overcharges and overbilling; however, one might need to narrow down the identity clause there and go after individuals, because identity is difficult to prove with larger corporations seeing there are many business inside the one entity.

There are several descriptions related to the lawsuit against Tinker and Taylor’s Home Security Service and their different establishments; as well as their approach to the breach of contract  suit which in review of the outcome notes that (a) for sole proprietor there will be loss in consideration to damages, (b) the general partnership has as much responsibility to damages in a law suit even if the blame is caused by an employee whether of acts or none acts of the company both partners are held accountable, (c) for LP the liability is more favorable for the partners in that they are more protected, however, the owners are still held accountable, and (d) LLC and Corporations, as mentioned, are not all privy to lawsuits because not all partners are involved as like investor, or rather silent partners. However, there can still be suits brought against individual companies or those who own them. In essence, the outcome here is that sole proprietorship and general partners is taking on a huge risk.

 

Watch: The Secret to Starting a Small Business Online

 

Sources:

Sole Proprietorship and General Partnerships are Risky Business. Business Owner’s Toolkit.

 Corporation Definition

Choose Your Business Structure.

Seaquist, G. (2012). Business law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

 What’s Best for Your Business? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crime and Business: Negligent Tort

 

CarOn June 29, 2014, the General Motors Company recalled thousands of vehicles which are said to have faulty mechanics and parts which have led to or have been the cause of serious or fatal injury to consumers.

The models affected are: 1997-2005 Chevrolet Malibu; 1998-2002 Oldsmobile Intrigue; 1999-2004 Oldsmobile Alero; 1999-2005 Pontiac Grand Am; 2000-2005 Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo; 2004-2008 Pontiac Grand Prix. The problem?  Reportedly, the ignition key can be bumped out of run position while driving [See: CNN Report| Every General Motors recall in 2014], and it is estimated that as many as 7,610,862 million vehicles are at risk nationwide. Consequently, as noted in news reports there is negligence on behalf of the GM employees; as well, as their CEO, Mary Barra who is accused of covering up faults in the installation of ignition switches the vehicles. This article will show where corporations, notably General Motors, failed or are neglectful and which might reportedly have led to civil action suits against them; hence, the elements of discussion are:  (a) Duty of Care, (b) Standard of Care, (c) Breach of Duty of Care, (d) Actual Causation, (e) Proximate Causation, (f) Actual Injury, and (g) Defenses to Negligence.

The General Motors Company apparently is no stranger to such recalls as this, however, not to such a magnitude because according to the list there have also been a number of recalls; not only for June, but also beginning with February 2014 through September 2014. According to Seaquist (2013) there are at least involved in the Duty of Care, or Reasonable Personal Standard (Seaquist, 2013) which speaks of the standard of behavior expected of a person in a particular situation. For example, there are at least 230 [including fifteen fired] employees accused in the suit, and as mention the CEO.

The article, “GM Admits Incompetence, Negligence Led to Delayed Recall,” disclosed GM’s lack of Duty to Care:

Last month, GM paid a $35 million fine — the largest ever assessed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — for failing to report the problem quickly to federal regulators. GM knew about problems with the ignition switches as early as 2001, and in 2005 it told dealers to tell owners to take excess items off their key chains so they wouldn’t drag down the ignition switch. In 2006, an engineer at GM approved a change in the switch design, but didn’t inform the government or change the corresponding part number. In subsequent years, that made it harder for other GM engineers to figure out why older Cobalts’ performed worse than newer ones (The Associated Press, 2014).

In this case, there is a burden of proof for the defendants for them to prove that they are not negligent, according to Seaquist (2013) who wrote concerning the Statutory Duty of Care.

There certain elements:

  1. Defendants have burden of proof to prove they were not negligent.
  2. Plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed at the duty of care.

There is also the element of Foreseeability [actual causation] and Proximate Causation which is direct causation, or the breach of the Duty of Care, or rather the circumstance of negligence which caused the injury and this includes foreseeability which begs the question of whether the defective part was known beforehand. In essence, knowing the part was faulty, and also knowing the consequences beforehand; yet, still allowing the cars out for sale causing injury to consumers (Seaquist, 2014).

Here is the premise, for example, is it foreseeable that people who buy cars have a tendency to add other objects to their key rings, and can be a problem with an already faulty ignition switch? According to the Associated Press article, GM knew and yes they knew there would be a problem, because they apparently recalled vehicles before for the same thing:

A new article stated, “In 2006, an engineer at GM approved a change in the switch design, but didn’t inform the government or change the corresponding part number. In subsequent years, that made it harder for other GM engineers to figure out why older Cobalts performed worse than newer ones. In May, GM recalled another 2.7 million vehicles for various issues. The bulk of the recall was for Chevrolet Malibu cars from 2004-2012 as well as the 2004-2007 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx, 2005-2010 Pontiac G6 and 2007-2010 Saturn Auras, all to modify the brake lamp wiring harness” [The Associate Press, 2014].

The last thing on the list to find negligence on the part of the manufacturing company General Motors is the industry of care which would give reference to expert opinion. Notably, there were also investigations initiated in notice of interviews, and firings which subsequently resulted from those. In the article, “General Motors releases delayed recall investigation, cites negligence and incompetence” Barra reports the finding of the experts in the scandal. The Daily News stated, “In 2006, GM engineer Ray De Giorgio – who designed the switch – approved a change in the switch design, but didn’t inform the government or change the corresponding part number. In subsequent years, that made it harder for other GM engineers to figure out why older Cobalts performed worse than newer ones. Barra confirmed Thursday that two employees placed on leave in April have been fired; De Giorgio was one of those employees.” (The Daily News, 2014). Hence, the manufacturer is in a jam as far as the defendant proving lack of neglect, because they have admitted their part, and as the article stated paid a hefty fine as a result.

Some forms in Defense of Negligence are: (a) Contributory negligence, (b) Comparative negligence or assumption of risk, and (c) Pure Contributory Negligence. The first contributory is where the plaintiff along with the defendant is responsible. In essence, as Seaquest (2013) noted about the snow on the walk, that is yes it is the business owners duty to make sure the snow is shovel, however, if there is snow on walk why did the plaintiff walk on it.  Could he have gone around? Did the customer have to use that business? Who knows? Hence both have a part, although the defendant might owe the greater responsibility for the injury because he did not shovel the walk (Seaquest, 2013). Secondly, Comparative Negligence would stem from the plaintiff help with his injury. Hence, if the defendant sued for two million dollars, and a jury decides that the plaintiff should pay a portion then that total is subtracted from the total award and the plaintiff wins the remained. In example, 2 million – plaintiff deduction/part = remaining award. In the Pure Comparative, the law agrees that the irresponsible party wins something no matter if the accident was caused by the defendant; however, the plaintiff’s award is greater.

Concerning Consumer Protection [ which is mentioned briefly], it is all important and is law which protects customers from harm. Seaquist (2013) wrote:  Strict Liability in Tort In contrast with absolute liability, strict liability is a recently developed theory in law that holds manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers liable for defects in the design or manufacturing of products that render such products unreasonably dangerous to the intended users (Seaquest, 2014). Consequently, GM has to face Congress on their negligent acts and failure to protect the public they serve [Read: General Motors executives to face Congress over car recall scandal]  in their efforts or lack of thereof in keeping their Duty of Care.

 

 

Sources:
LIABILITY OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS FOR UNSAFE DESIGN OF PASSENGER CARS

Business law for managers. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

General Motors releases delayed recall investigation, cites negligence and incompetence

GM Admits Incompetence, Negligence Led to Delayed Recall. Mashable. Business

Money Every General Motors recall in 2014 

Crime and Business: Murder In the Name of Business

images (2)The topic of crime and business is an interesting one and one cannot even fathom that there are people in business that would actually kill for whatever cause, but one cannot fathom even more the idea of killing for money which is probably why someone would kill. Hence, the idea of murder in the corporate is best believed in Hollywood. However, according to the New York Times, this idea is being given more of a consideration than in the past, because seemingly, courts have struggle with the premise that the corporation as living and breathing. Yet, their acts, as such, should find someone to blame.

E.R. Shipp (1985) wrote:

For years, the courts rejected the notion that a corporation could be charged with a crime. Since it had no mind, it could not be said to have had intent. Gradually it was accepted that a corporation can be held criminally liable for the conduct of agents acting as employees, or for violations of antitrust or regulatory laws. But the idea of corporate ”personhood” stopped short for murder – the killing of one person by another. (Shipp, 1985, para. 1).

I can look at the healthcare industry as a corporate entity and say that many people have been murdered because of intentionally sending people home to die this act being a crime against society. In this instance, the corporation is a privately owned medical facilities, or rather, for profit medical entities. By intent as Seaquist (2013) wrote, that intent does not mean that the harm was intentional,” but that there was harm done which caused damage (Seaquist, 2013). However, one can still say that there is intent when someone is sent home while hospital knows that surgery is of the utmost importance in whether a person lives or dies.

For example, a woman has a heart attack for the third time, and the doctors knowing that she has blockage in her heart that can ultimately kill her decide that because she had no insurance send her home with pills that they tell her will dissolve the clot. This is not malpractice in the sense that no treatment is done, but an intent that would cause harm had the woman died. However, she is alive and well today thanks to healthcare reform which allows all people adequate care without being turned away for inability to pay. Hence, had the woman died, in my opinion this would be a crime, not only against her but against society; in which, she is not the only one with that experience.

Today what would be the legal grounds involved if the perhaps a death or injury claim is brought forth by the family since this type behavior is illegal? Well for one it is a breach of the First Amendment. [See: You’re on the clock: Doctors rush patients out the door].

As far as crime against business, I think stealing from the company is a crime. Stealing, as Seaquist (2013) stated is conversion. She wrote: “If the defendant interferes with someone’s personal property to such a degree that it is ruined or lost, then this is conversion. The tort of conversion consists of permanently depriving the owner of personal property of its use and enjoyment through theft or destruction.” (Seaquist, 2013).

I don’t know if this is the same thing, however, a Texas prosecutor was killed, because a former Justice of the Peace was disgruntled over being fired for stealing computers from the court house, and not only did he kill the prosecutor, but he and his wife killed police chief and his wife in their home as well [See: Death Penalty Sought in Case of Killing of Texas Prosecutors].

Sources:

. CAN A CORPORATION COMMIT MURDER?  

FEDERAL HEALTH CARE LAW