Case B Chunk is the anger management counselor for the XYZ Counseling Agency, a Limited Liability Company. Recently, XYZ Counseling Agency has been sued by a client named Wilbur for the reason that Chunk beat up him because of his failure during the counseling session two moths ago. In fact, XYZ Counseling Agency has admonished Chunk a week earlier because he grabbed a client by the arm and shook him. XYZ Counseling Agency has a specific policy against violence. In addition, Chunk was fired by another company in result of the violence five years ago. So Wilbur used XYZ Counseling Agency. Wilbur sued XYZ Counseling Agency because he was beaten by the company employee Chunk during the counseling session. And he believes XYZ Counseling Company should be responsible for behavior by their employees. In this case, the client is suing the counseling agency because he was physically assaulted by one of its employees. Wilbur, the plaintiff is suing XYZ Counseling agency because an employee(Chuck) physically assaulted him during an anger management session; he holds the company responsible for the employee’s action. By making a decision to hire Chunk despite his bad work record the counseling company took up responsibility foe his actions, thus providing the plaintiff enough reason to sue the defendant of the grounds of “tort of negligence”. The most important reason why Wilbur is suing the counseling company and the individual employees is that the company should be responsible for its employee’s actions because this company has a specific policy against violence. If the plaintiff won the case, the counseling company and not the individual employee(Chunk) would be held responsible for the consequences. In addition, the plaintiff can point out the negligence in the hiring process of the company, where despite knowing that Chunk had faced charges of assault in the past, the counseling company chose to overlook such an important aspect and hired him and put a clients life in danger. To what matters worse, Chunk had displayed such outbursts of rage with another client in the counseling company where he had grabbed the client’s arm. The counseling company was aware of this and still chose to let him work after a brief counseling session. The above-mentioned incidents would be very critical in establishing a case against the defendant on the grounds of negligence. While the defendant can put across the argument that they were well aware of Wilbur’s past behavior and that they had taken strict measures to rectify it. They can point out that such outbursts of rage are quite common in such fields, and that their company had a sound recruiting process where the applicants’ background was thoroughly checked and skills were thoroughly assessed. Chunk had not committed a felony, which was why the company deemed it reasonable to hire him despite Chunk having lost his previous job due to outbursts of rage. The defendant can also argue that there was no proof that it was Chunk who started the fight. It could just as easily have been that Chunk attacked Wilbur on the grounds of self-defense. Upon viewing both sides of the case I would award the lawsuit to the plaintiff Wilbur. He sued the company on the grounds of taking responsibility for its employee’s actions. The company clearly compromised the safety of its costumers by hiring Chunk despite being aware of his past work history. In addition, the company was negligent in that they let Chunk continue to work despite having a row with a client merely a week before the incident. If I am the judge, the plaintiff Wilbur would win. Because of the above reasons, defense is lack of evidence and plaintiff’s evidence is more effective. The company should have been more responsible and offered Chunk sabbatical until he resolved his anger issues when the first incident was reported. The counseling company knows Chunk’s bad actions will make others in danger, but it still hires Chunk. In addition, the counseling company has a specific policy against violence. Employees should abide by this policy. If the employee violate this policy, he should be counseled first. If he still does that, he should be fired because he ignores the company’s policy and will hurt customers. In addition, it is said that this policy never terminated anyone for such conduct. The policy is used to restrict employees’ bad actions, so it should be paid attention to by everyone in the company. In my opinion, Chunk’s bad action should be considered as crime. He hurts others and make them in danger. The company knows his bad history and still hires him. It should be aware of his responsibility for Chunk’s bad actions. In addition, Chunk ignores the policy against violence. Even though he was counseled before, he still persist his old ways. Chunk and XYZ Counseling Agency both do wrong. So I believe Wilbur should prevail.