Business Torts

Sharon and Darryl have the right to be secure in their homes and enjoy their privacy. Use of force in their case is limited since deadly force is not allowed if it is just to prevent the invasion. Property owners can use deadly force if there is a chance of grievous bodily harm. Sharon and Darryl are also free to use physical force in their self defense if they are under threat. In the current case it was an apparent necessity. However, their use of force was not unreasonable and instead the intruder caused them grievous bodily harm. However, unless there is sufficient reason to use deadly force, the property owner cannot use it since it would cause the intruder serious bodily harm. The intruder has trespassed their property and caused them grievous bodily harm as they were badly cut while trying to eject him from the property. So, in this way, they are free from liability and the liability would fall only on the intruder. Whatever they did was in self defense and not with the intention to cause the intruder any serious bodily harm.

So, in the current case it is established that the liability would fall on the intruder and not on Sharon and Darryl. The intruder has caused them grievous injury and their use of force was reasonable. The intruder has caused physical injury and therefore is liable of battery. Their use of force is reasonable; however not that of the intruder and as such the liability falls on the intruder. He is liable of trespassing as well as battery. This is illegal as well as unethical. Ethically, the intruder’s act is wrong.

Judged by the ethics of utilitarianism, the act is wrong. One should act in a way that promotes maximum utility for the maximum number of people. The main stakeholders in the current case are Sharon, Darryl and the intruder. However, the other people living in the building are also minor stakeholders since they are also threatened by such instances of intrusion. What happened to Sharon and Darryl also puts the other people in the apartment under the same threat. However, what the intruder did puts the other stakeholders’ lives under threat. Therefore, it would be ethically wrong to act in a way that that threatens the lives of others. Based on it an ethical duty is owed to Sharon and Darryl whose lives had come under direct threat due to the act of the intruder. In such a case they were free to use deadly force against the intruder. However, they did not or could not do so under the given circumstances. They were injured seriously while trying to eject the intruder. The intruder’s acts are illegal as well as unethical. So, the liability is also his. Sharon and Darryl are free of liability since they did not do anything wrong but only did what was right under the given circumstances. If they likes they could have used deadly force against the intruder. The intruder in the given situation would be held liable for battery as well as for trespassing.