Scott Duggan
4/26/14
BLAW 201
Ethics Assignment
An Unethical Act
The case presented is a customer in a grocery store slipped and seriously
injured herself in a store after ignoring the warning sign about a wet floor that had
just been mopped. The state law in which this occurred states that a sign is
reasonable warning that releases the store from any liability from negligent
customers. The customer has sustained serious injuries that lead to large hospital
bills and several months worth of missed work. In this case, the customer’s lawyer
is going to sue the store for the damages. However, the lawyer states that if the
employee testifies that there was no sign in place to warn the customer that the
payment would be handled by the insurance company, forgoing attorney’s fees and
not affect your position with the insurance company.
There are many ethical dilemmas associated with this situation. The largest
ones are most certainly the integrity and truthfulness dilemmas. If the employee
were to go along with the attorney’s plan, the employee would be lying, not only to
the insurance company, but also to their employer and possibly the courts. When
you lie to the insurance company about something like this, it is insurance fraud,
which is illegal. This would have huge repercussions if the insurance company were
to find out. The employee, along with the injured customer and their lawyer would
most likely be found guilty of soft fraud, which is a misdemeanor. This could lead to
fines and possibly jail time for all parties involved in the crime. This also touches
upon the fairness ethical dilemma. It is certainly unfair to the insurance company
since they are being charged for something that they should not have to cover. The
fair way to go about resolving this situation is to not lie to the insurance company,
but instead remedy the situation through other legal means.
When examining this situation from the perspective of the employee, it can
be seen that they are in a tight spot. While the employee would most certainly feel
bad for the injured customer and the option of forgoing attorney’s fees would sound
appealing, it must be understood that they would be committing a crime if they
were to lie. The only correct way to remedy this situation for the employee would
be to not lie about the sign, because it is the right thing to do, both legally and
morally. When examining this situation from the perspective of the injured
customer, it can be seen how this situation could seem dire. They have been out of
work for months and have incurred large hospital bills. Also, in this situation, there
is no one to blame for the injuries than the customer herself. It is understandable
why they customer would consider insurance fraud in this case, however they, like
the employee, must do the right thing and tell the truth in this situation. When
examining this situation from the perspective of the lawyer, it can be seen that they
are simply trying to do what they feel is the right thing for their client. However,
they must see that they are putting both their client and the employee of the store in
harms way by suggesting that they lie about the situation. Also, the lawyer could
lose their license to practice law if it were found out that they had suggested
insurance fraud.
Many times when dealing with an unethical situation, the parties involved
who are condoning the behavior will try to rationalize said behavior to seem ethical.
The first rationalization here is to sympathize with the injured customer. The
insurance company is just some “big company” that can afford the loss, while she
cannot. While it may be true that the insurance company can afford the loss here
while she cannot, it does not excuse the fact that this would still be insurance fraud,
which is illegal and unethical under positive law. Another rationalization here is the
use of other state law in the case. In the state that the incident occurred in, the law
states that a warning sign is not sufficient and that a complete barrier must be in
place. While this situation may have turned out differently in another state, it does
not mean that excuses the affected parties from following the law in their state. The
fact is that a sign is sufficient warning and that the customer deliberately chose to
ignore said warning – thus injuring herself.
Since there are quite a few ethics models, there are quite a few ways that this
situation could be resolved. When applying the Blanchard and Peale ethics model,
this situation cannot get past the first question asked – is it legal? The fact of the
matter is that it would be illegal for the employee to lie to the insurance company.
This is insurance fraud, and as outlined earlier, if carried out, could end very badly
for all parties involved. The other questions in the Blanchard and Peale model need
not even apply in this situation. If the Front-Page-of-the-Newspaper model was
applied here, it can understood that neither the employee, the employee’s employer,
the customer or their lawyer would feel comfortable with their actions of insurance
fraud being on the front page of the newspaper. If the Wall Street Journal ethics
model were applied in this situation, the parties involved would again come to the
same conclusion. The first question of the Wall Street Journal model is if the
decision is in compliance with the law, which it is not. If the employee were to
observe their situation through these models, they would most certainly see that
what the lawyer was asking is unethical, and they would turn down the offer. The
ethical thing to do is to go through the legal means of resolution. Also, the employee
or even the customer may see it fit to report their lawyer to law enforcement, since
they are suggesting and condoning illegal practices.