As one can see, Abdulaziz’s decision to enlist Yazeed’s support failed to get a job. It seems that Yazeed’s lack of focus and overconfidence are the reasons why he approached the questions so carelessly. Emotional and even economic damage was caused to Abdulaziz; he lost his job prospect, and now he can sue Yazeed. Here, the legal arguments that Abdulaziz can use against Yazeed will be analyzed.
Torts can be identified in the case of Abdulaziz and Yazeed, and the first one is negligence. Experts note that negligence is “a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances” (Negligence, n.d., para. 1). Yazeed had a duty to act because he agreed to help Abdulaziz. However, his visible carelessness led to the expected result of such behavior, which is his failure to apply for a job for Abdulaziz. Emotional harm, namely regrets and failed expectations, can be considered an injury requirement in negligence tort (Negligence, n.d.). Although economic harm is not a full-fledged argument in negligence cases, Abdulaziz can use this as a secondary one in court.
It is also noteworthy that causing emotional harm is also tort by itself, even if it was done unintentionally. Lawyers refer to this offense as “negligent infliction of emotional distress” (Goguen, n.d., para. 1). The claim would be more valid if it turns out that the emotional damage that Yazeed inflicted on his friend led to a deterioration in physical health and the development of mild eating or sleep disorders in the future plaintiff. As with the tort of negligence, the court requires the element of foreseeability to accept the claim, and it is present here.
References
Goguen, D. (n.d.). Negligent infliction of emotional distress claims (NIED). AllLaw. Web.
Negligence. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute. Web.