Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Notably, the occurrence of such situations is usually prevented through various ways.
One of the ways in which this gross negligence could have been prevented is through minimizing debts. We've seen that a lot of cash was borrowed from other firms including banks and they were never paid back their cash. The creditors decided that in order for them to get their money back they had to take action, which was to file case against the agency. At this point Brooklyn CareWorks had no other source of obtaining funds, which forced it to close down. Secondly, the lawsuit could have been prevented through holding discussions between Brooklyn CareWorks board of directors and the creditors committee on the financial status of the agency. Through the discussions, the two parties could agree on how to control their finances and how the debtors can be sorted out. The board of directors could have organized for workshops, seminars through which they could...
Moreover, the board of directors could have also learnt how to minimize or avoid debts, which could have helped to prevent the closure of the organization.
In order to prevent the recurrence of such scenarios, the organization should adopt several strategies. Brooklyn CareWorks could prevent the recurrence of such scenario in the future through ensuring that the organization keeps up with payroll taxes, which is one of the easiest and most serious mistakes that nonprofits can make. The other steps include identifying fiduciaries with the ability to perform unrestricted powers by respecting management of the plan or asset and those with discretionary authority or responsibility in administration of the plan. The board of directors should be in a position to understand the duties of a trustee by identifying any impending conflicts of interests and how to avoid them.
Negligence Torts, Duty of Care and Available Remedies People commit torts all the time, intentionally and unintentionally, and many of these are dismissed, excused, ignored or otherwise allowed to transpire without resorting to litigation for remedies. For instance, if someone's foot is stepped on a couple of times in a crowded elevator, it may be a tort but it also may not be a big deal. In some cases, though, the
Negligence of Auditors Policy Considerations In the past one decade, there have been rampant cases against auditors, reflecting both on the litigious nature of a plaintiff's bar, which encourages claims against independent certified public accountants Owing to this, there have been numerous literatures encouraging the imposition of civil liability on accountants whose actions fail to conform to professional standards. Therefore, many courts after considering the scope of an auditor's vulnerability to negligence have
Negligence and Respondeat Superior: Should Employers be Held Responsible for Employee Negligence? Negligence "A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances" (West, 2008). To establish a claim of negligence, a plaintiff has to establish four elements: duty of care, breach of duty, factual causation, and damages (Berry, Sahradnik, Kotzas, & Benson, 2013). The duty of care
"Cause" is the next element needed for a successful negligence suit, but this is probably the most intricate element involved. The first aspect of "cause" is known as "cause in fact," and involves demonstrating that the defendant's actions, or lack of action, actually caused the harm suffered by the plaintiff. For example, the patient in the case actually suffered paralysis as a result of the surgery. It must be pointed
Negligence Generally, In order to sustain a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty of care by his negligent commission of an action (or by his negligent omission of action), and that the defendant's breach of that duty of care was the proximate cause of tangible harm to the plaintiff (Dobbs, 2001). In addition, and
Sanders's injury was more as a result of the "hard falls" of softball, rather than any sort of "rough treatment" that occurred as a result of improper supervision. The "rough treatment" category of head-butting football players can easily be distinguished from the more passive interaction between sliding ankle and first base. When the facts of a case clearly demonstrate improper supervision of "rough treatment" athletic activity, the courts have had