Business Torts and Ethics Paper
Yvette Baldwin
ETH/312
September 12, 2015
Rosalie Drawbaugh
Business Torts and Ethics PaperGenerally speaking, an intruder who invades other people’s premises is considered to have surrendered their rights. This means that the occupants have a right to defend themselves through whatever means they consider to be ‘reasonable force’. At times, the use of deadly force is justifiable, especially when the intruder causes (or is even believed to have the intention to cause) bodily harm. The bottom-line is that the owners/occupants of the premises in question are allowed to do anything within their power, as long as their actions are not grossly disproportionate (Clarke, 2012; Medsger, 2014).
It is relatively easy to argue the case against the intruder. In this case, the intruder is evidently liable for the harm and the loss incurred. In most of the states and even internationally, the law regard the people defending themselves as potential witnesses, and not as potential offenders. Sharon and Darryl acted reasonably, and this would still have been the argument bad they knocked this burglar out cold. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to, say, stick a knife or even continue hitting the intruder after he has obviously been neutralized. The intruder is liable, and Sharon and Darryl are potential witnesses (Sennewald & Christman, 2011).
Landlord’s Responsibility
In most of the states, the landlords are required to protect the tenants as much as possible. The tenants are supposed to be protected from thieves, assailants, as well as from the criminal acts committed by fellow tenants. Additionally, the landlords have to ensure that the neighborhoods are protected from the illegal activities committed by their tenants (Mawby, 2013). This means that the landlords should report, or at least expel, tenants who engage in such acts as burglary and drug dealing. The legal codes defining these responsibilities are anchored on the…

Business Torts and Ethics