Question

which of the following would be most strongly supported by the need for an employer to establish the lack of consent to a prohibited act, its reasonable steps to prevent the act being committed, and subsequent reasonable steps to mitigate or avoid the act's consequences? question 10 options: a) negligent hiring defence b) negligent death defence c) bfor defence d) due diligence defence

Answer 1

The due diligence defense would be most strongly supported by the need for an employer to establish the lack of consent to a prohibited act, having taken reasonable steps to prevent it, and subsequent steps to mitigate its consequences.

Step-by-step explanation:

The concept you are asking about relates to establishing a defense in certain legal situations faced by employers. The defense that would be most strongly supported by an employer needing to prove the lack of consent to a prohibited act, taking reasonable steps to prevent the act, and taking subsequent steps to mitigate or avoid the act's consequences is the due diligence defense. This type of defense is utilized in various legal contexts, including regulatory compliance and employment law, to show that an employer has made a reasonable effort to avoid harm or legal breaches. The aim is to demonstrate that the employer has acted responsibly and thus should not be held liable for the act committed by an employee.