Critically evaluate, in relation to the common law duty of care, the Essay - 11

Critically evaluate, in relation to the common law duty of care, the liability of employers for references. How, if at all, does - Essay Example For explicit jurisdictions of laws of duty care three tests and their accompanying principles are conducted, that is, the evaluation of whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable; whether there is a requisite degree of proximity between the claimant and the defendant, and whether is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in line with public policy concerns (Bruggemeier, 2004, 4). With a variety of recognizable situations such as one road user to another, manufacturer to consumer, doctor to patient and solicitor to client; where courts recognize existence of duty of care, this paper will evaluate employer to employee common law of duty care in relation to references given to potential employers. In our case, the references would fall in the doctrine of â€Å"Respondeat Superior† or â€Å"let the master answer†, in which the university is the master and the potential employer and/or the graduate is the agent, such that the university is charged with respon sibilities of negligence (Giliker, 2010, pp.4-5). For instance, the university owes duty care to the graduate in relation to giving background/ academic information to the potential employer and in cases where the university provides false information to the employer on the competence of the potential employee, then university is charged with legal responsibility of lack of care on the part of the employer in relation to the employee. Defamation is a liability with which communication or any social exchange of given parties tend to harm the reputation of another, lowering or under-estimating his/ her association with other people or the environment (Shuy, 2010, 2). In our case for instance, the university exchanges information on the graduate’s competencies which in one way or another, intentionally or negligently, is false and/or ruins the graduate’s chances of getting hired and his/her future career path and profession. For this matter, the tests of whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable will depend on the information leaked to the potential employer in relation to the morally accepted or the limit of personal information that the institution is supposed to share. The degree of proximity between the claimant and defendant, graduate and the university respectively, will apply in that the case law for academic institutions is to guide the graduates along their career paths and defamation at this point would make the university legally liable. The clause of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in relation to public policy would differ in such a case depending with the sensitivity of the information and its relevance to the potential employer (Glanon, 2010, 12). For example, on the issues of integrity and competence/qualifications on some sectors of the economy such as public finance, internal security or public health, the institution ought to give the information regardless of the defamation injuries to the gradua te; basing the argument on the public policy concerns, and thus differing from the provisions of the duty care. Truth and privilege are the major defenses to the defamation claims that waive the