Common Values and the Public-Private Divide, Essay Example

Before considering the facts of the case, it is imperative to take into account that the Liberian law shall hold. Under the Liberian law, the wife is the property of the husband (Oliver, 2009). However, the case of Mrs. Lowell vs. Logistics & Services Corporation is likely to be brought under the United States Laws where the plaintiff resides. This therefore means that the wife and should not bring a case against Logistics & Services Corporation. Under the Liberian law, it would have been the husband to bring a case against Logistics & Services Corporation, unless in the event that the husband is deceased.

Logistics & Services Corporation is responsible for negligence under the Private Law. Logistics & Services Corporation entered a contract with the passengers by accepting to keep all the passengers’ belongings in the safe. It was thus the onus of the Logistics Company to ensure maximum security is maintained within the passengers’ cabins and avoid negligent injury to the passengers. Under the Private Law, Logistics & Services Corporation would be responsible for the meeting the medical costs of Mrs. Lowell while she was hospitalized at Puerto Rico until she returns to the United States. This is because; Logistics & Services Corporation had a duty under the passenger contract to ensure that the passengers are safe. The passenger contract stipulates that the company shall take responsibility for any injuries sustained by the passengers during their voyage or cruise resulting from negligence (Ruffert, 2009).

The courts shall consider the fact that Logistics & Services Corporation was under obligation to ensure maximum security so that robbers do not enter the passenger’s cabin. Like any other normal contract, the passengers, Mr. & Mrs. Lowell paid their travel fares which were supposed to be sufficient consideration for their trip in return for security to both their property and themselves. Indeed, Logistics & Services Corporation breached the Private Law stipulations by breaching security and permitting robbers to enter the passenger’s cabin. The company would therefore be sued by Mr. Lowell under Private Law for negligence.

On the other hand, Mrs. Lowell will sue Logistics & Services Corporation for the loss of cash, jewelry, and laptop stolen from the Lowell’s safe under the Public Law. The company will be sued by Mrs. Lowell for negligence in that the company failed to maintain security, a fact that led to the loss of personal effects of its passengers. Indeed, Mr. & Mrs. Lowell took adequate care to their property by locking them in their cabin safe. However, the loss was occasioned by the breach in security in the cruise ship belonging to Logistics & Services Corporation in which they were passengers. The court would thus rule in favor of Mr. Lowell as the plaintiff for the negligent loss of cash, jewelry and her husband’s laptop. Logistics & Services Corporation would also have to pay damages for the loss of customer details which were in the laptop. These would be covered under the pecuniary loss that was sustained by Mr. Lowell. The Liberian law does not permit the wife to bring a case on behalf of the husband. Therefore, Mrs. Lowell would not be the plaintiff in this case, but her husband, Mr. Lowell.

However, if the incident had happened at a Logistics and Services company resort on the U.S. mainland, the United States law would apply and thus the wife would be allowed to bring a case on behalf of the husband (Bergkamp, 2001). There would therefore be legalities pertaining to the witness, who is the wife and the husband’s alibi at the scene. It is the wife who was the prime witness yet the law allows the husband to be the plaintiff.

This case should be an eye-opener for Logistics and Services Company in terms of future cases and avoiding liability accruing from the passenger contracts. Logistics and Services Company should develop the wordings of the contract to include the fact that any loss to personal property of the passengers shall solely be under the obligation of the passengers and not the company. The company should thus in effect erect disclaimer notices which would allow it to repudiate loss to personal property of the passengers.

Moreover, Logistics and Services Company should introduce a stipulation that all passengers should surrender their personal valuables at the reception counter before proceeding to their cabins. This would have ensured that the company avoids liability since the passenger’s personal valuables would have been under their hands. By so doing, Logistics and Services Company should also tighten security and introduce surveillance cameras to all cabin common areas while ensuring that they do not breach the privacy of their passengers, lest they are sued. Beefing of security within the cruise ship would ensure that passengers are safe and thus avert future liabilities arising from breach of both Private and Public Laws (2003). Logistics and Services Company would effectively be under no obligation in case a passenger loses his or her personal valuables in their cabins due to the disclaimer at the reception. Most of the hotels and lodgings do this to limit their liability in regard to Private Law under negligence. According to Ruffert (2009), legal liability for passengers often falls on the ship owners and this cannot be totally avoided by the use of disclaimers.

References

Bergkamp, L. (2001). Liability and environment: private and public law aspects of civil liability for environmental harm in an international context. Sydney: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Oliver, D. (2009). Common values and the public-private divide Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ruffert, M. ed. (2009). The public-private law divide: potential for transformation?. Berlin: BIICL.

Sell, S.K. (2003). Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.