- Information
- AI Chat
CHAP 4 Business scenarios answers
Fundamentals Of Business Law (LAW 1101)
Baruch College CUNY
Recommended for you
Related Studylists
baruchPreview text
Chapter 4 Business Scenarios and Case Studies 4-1: Liability to Business Invitees ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case: Kim went to Ling’s Market to pick up a few items for dinner. It was a stormy day, and the wind had blown water through the market’s door each time it opened. As Kim entered through the door, she slipped and fell in the rainwater that had accumulated on the floor. The manager knew of the weather conditions but had not posted any sign to warn customers of the water hazard. Kim injured her back as a result of the fall and sued Ling’s for damages. Can Ling’s be held liable for negligence? Discuss. Plaintiff: Kim Defendant: Ling’s Market Issue: Ling’s Market had not posted any sign to warn customers of the water hazard. As a result, Kim fell and injured herself Question: Can Ling’s be held liable for negligence? Answer: Plaintiff, Kim (a business invitee), sued Ling’s Market, Defendant, for not posting any sign to warn customers of the water hazard. Ling’s can be held liable for negligence because they failed to provide their duty of care to the customer. If they had posted a sign warn customers of the hazard, it would have prevented Kim from injury. The risk was foreseeable by Ling’s as they were aware of the weather. However, the failed to guard against the risk. Kim suffered injury because of Ling’s failure to live up to the required duty of care. Other Answer: Business L would be held liable for negligence because Kim was a business invitee. Business L owed a duty of care to all business invitees, and since the owner knew of the hazard and did nothing to warn its customers, a court would find Business L to be negligent and responsible for subsequent damages. Kim is a lawful invitee, therefore manager has the duty of reasonable care to his customers. 4-2: Spotlight on Intentional Torts – Defamation--------------------------------------------------------Case: Sharon Yeagle was an assistant to the vice president of student affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). As part of her duties, Yeagle helped students participate in the Governor’s Fellows Program. The Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech’s student newspaper, published an article about the university’s success in placing students in the program. The article’s text surrounded a block quotation attributed to Yeagle with the phrase “Director of Butt Licking” under her name. Yeagle sued the Collegiate Times for defamation. She argued that the phrase implied the commission of sodomy and was therefore actionable. What is Collegiate Times’s defense to this claim? Plaintiff: Sharon Yeagle Defendant: Collegiate Times Issue: Collegiate Times published an article that attributed a quotation to Yeagle that Yeagle argued implied the commission of sodomy Question: What is Collegiate Times’s defense to this claim? Chapter 4 Business Scenarios and Case Studies Answer: Collegiate Times’s defense to this claim could be that the statement attributed to Yeagle does not meet the elements of defamation. Defamation protects people against damage to their reputations. Defamation for public persons requires the proof of actual malice in order for the public person to gain damages for emotional distress. The elements of defamation include the statement was defamatory (false), the statement referred to a specific individual, and the statement was published to any number of persons. The defenses to defamation include truth and privilege. Collegiate Times defense can be that the block quotation was empty of any literal significance and did not express any factual information about Yeagle. 4-3: Business Torts--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case: Medtronic, Inc., is a medical technology company that competes for customers with St. Jude Medical S., Inc. James Hughes worked for Medtronic as a sales manager. His contract prohibited him from working for a competitor for one year after leaving Medtronic. Hughes sought a position as a sales director for St. Jude. St. Jude told Hughes that his contract with Medtronic was unenforceable and offered him a job. Hughes accepted. Medtronic filed a suit, alleging wrongful interference. Which type of interference was most likely the basis for this suit? Did it occur here? Explain. Question: Which type of interference was most likely the basis for this suit? Did it occur here? Answer: This is a case of wrongful interference with the contractual relationship. Wrongful interference with contractual relationship possesses three elements necessary for its occurrence. This include a valid contract must exist between the two parties, the third party that is interfering must know there is a contract between the two parties, and the third party must deliberately persuade the party to breach such contract. James Hughes possess a valid contract with Medtronic. The third party, St. Judes Medical S., knew about the existence of the contract between James Hughes and Medtronic. Lastly, St. Judes Medical S., had deliberately persuaded JH that he is eligible to enter into a new contract as his previous contract was unenforceable. Therefore, all the three elements of the wrong interference are satisfied in this case and form the basis of the suit. 4-4 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress -------------------------------------------------------------Case: While living in her home country of Tanzania, Sophia Kiwanuka signed an employment contract with Anne Margareth Bakilana, a Tanzanian living in Washington, D. Kiwanuka traveled to the United States to work as a babysitter and maid in Bakilana’s house. When Kiwanuka arrived, Bakilana confiscated her passport, held her in isolation, and forced her to work long hours under threat of having her deported. Kiwanuka worked seven days a week without breaks and was subjected to regular verbal and psychological abuse by Bakilana. Kiwanuka filed a complaint against Bakilana for intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. Bakilana argued that Kiwanuka’s complaint should be dismissed because Chapter 4 Business Scenarios and Case Studies reasonable care to make its premises safe for her use. The balcony ran nearly the entire width of the window in Lucario’s room. She could have reasonably believed that the window was a means of access to the balcony. The window/balcony configuration was dangerous, however, because the window opened wide enough for an adult to climb out, but the twelve-inch gap between one side of the window and the balcony was unprotected. This unprotected gap opened to a drop of more than three stories to a concrete surface below. Should the hotel have anticipated the potential harm to a guest opening the window in Room 59 and attempting to access the balcony? The hotel encouraged guests to “step out onto the balcony” to smoke. The dangerous window/balcony configuration could have been remedied at a minimal cost. These circumstances could be perceived as creating an “unreasonably dangerous” condition. And it could be concluded that the hotel created or knew of the condition and failed to take reasonable steps to warn of it or correct it. Of course, the Weatherford might argue that the window/balcony configuration was so obvious that the hotel was not liable for Lucario’s fall. In the actual case on which this problem is based, the court concluded that the Weatherford did not breach its duty of care to Lucario. On McMurtry’s appeal, a state intermediate appellate court held that this conclusion was in error, vacated the lower court’s judgment in favor of the hotel on this issue, and remanded the case. 4-6 Negligence----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case: Ronald Rawls and Zabian Bailey were in an auto accident in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bailey rear-ended Rawls at a stoplight. Evidence showed it was more likely than not that Bailey failed to apply his brakes in time to avoid the collision, failed to turn his vehicle to avoid the collision, failed to keep his vehicle under control, and was inattentive to his surroundings. Rawls filed a suit in a Connecticut state court against his insurance company, Progressive Northern Insurance Co., to obtain benefits under an underinsured motorist clause, alleging that Bailey had been negligent. Could Rawls collect? Discuss. Question: Could Rawls collect? Discuss. The question of negligence is the key issue in this case. Negligence happens when someone suffers and injury due to the another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care. When talking about the negligence, it is important to note that the person committing the act neither wishes to bring harm to someone nor believes it will happen. However, the risk must be foreseeable. Meaning, a reasonable person engaging in the same activity would anticipate the risk and guard against it. To claim negligence, the plaintiff has to prove the following: • The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff • The defendant breached that duty • The defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury • The plaintiff suffered a legally recognizable injury If Bailey is cited for vehicle violations, negligence per se would also be a factor in this case. Negligence per se happens when an individual violates a statute or ordinance that it was intended to prevent. Chapter 4 Business Scenarios and Case Studies Application: In this case, Zabian Bailey rear-ended Ronald Rawls at a stoplight. Evidence showed that Bailey failed to apply his brakes in time, turn his vehicle to avoid the collision, failed to keep his vehicle under control, and was inattentive to his surroundings. To see how these key facts apply to the act of negligence, we should look at the four, previously described, rules of negligence. The first one is that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. People have the right to act and do as they please unless their actions infringe on the interests of others. Under this definition it is clear that Bailey did have a duty of care to the plaintiff. As a driver, Bailey does not have the right to drive carelessly or run into other people. Bailey did, in fact, breach that duty of care by rear-ending Rawls. We then need to ask if the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury. In this case, we can assume that there was injury to Rawls or his vehicle that was directly caused by him getting rear-ended by Bailey. We can also assume that the injury was legally recognizable. As stated in the Rules section, if Bailey is cited for any vehicle violations, negligence per se will then apply because he will be violating laws that were created to avoid car accidents. Conclusion: Rawls is absolutely able to collect on his suite against Progressive Northern Insurance Co. Bailey had a duty of care for Rawls, breached that duty, the breach caused Rawls’ injury, and Rawls suffered a legally recognizable injury. All of this adds up to Bailey being a negligent driver which would allow Rawls to collect in his suite. 4-7 Negligence ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case: Charles Robison, an employee of West Star Transportation, Inc., was ordered to cover an unevenly loaded flatbed trailer with a 150-pound tarpaulin. The load included uncrated equipment and pallet crates of different heights, about thirteen feet off the ground at its highest point. While standing on the load, manipulating the tarpaulin without safety equipment or assistance, Robison fell headfirst and sustained a traumatic head injury. He filed a suit against West Star to recover for his injury. Was West Star “negligent in failing to provide a reasonably safe place to work,” as Robison claimed? Explain. FACTS-Charles Robison, an employee of West Star Transportation, Inc., was ordered to cover an unevenly loaded flatbed trailer with a 150-pound tarpaulin (a water-proof cloth). The load included uncrated equipment and pallet crates of different heights, about thirteen feet off the ground at its highest point. While standing on the load, manipulating the tarpaulin without safety equipment or assistance, Robison fell and sustained a traumatic head injury. He filed a suit against West Star to recover for his injury. ISSUE-Was West Star “negligent in failing to provide a reasonably safe place to work,” as Robison claimed? Explain. LAW- The law that is present in this case is negligence, which is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. Comparative negligence is also present in this situation which is a rule in tort law, used in the majority of states that reduces the plaintiff’s recovery in proportion to the plaintiff’s degree of fault, rather than barring recovery completely. Chapter 4 Business Scenarios and Case Studies interest for profit may serve as a sufficient defense in a wrongful interference suit. Additional Case--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Don Juan is so busy trying to get the attention of a young woman that he walks into a light pole and is knocked unconscious. Driver happens to be driving down the road and sees Don Juan’s unfortunate incident. Driver is so amused by the incident that he takes his eyes off the road for a moment and nearly slams into the car ahead of him. Veering off the road to avoid an accident, Driver drives into a restaurant breaking a large window. Noodle, who was enjoying a bowl of soup at the moment, is burned by the hot soup, which is knocked off the table and into Noodle’s lap. Noodle sues the restaurant, Driver and Don Juan for negligence. As to each claim, what result? Explain. 1. Under the tort law, three elements must be present tort claim on Tortfeasor: 1) Tortfeasor, or defendant, had a duty to act or behave in a certain way. 2) Plaintiff must prove that the behavior demonstrated by the tortfeasor did not conform to the duty owed to the plaintiff. 3) The plaintiff suffered an injury or loss as a result. A tort, as in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. In the case, the tortious act was committed by the Driver, so the legal liability all lies on the Driver. As the plaintiff "Noodle" has suffered, so the legal claim exists, but there is no fault of Restaurant and Don Juan, as they are not attached to the final fault of Noodle's burn. So, both Restaurant and Don Juan escape the claim. The driver, defendant, had a duty to act or behave in a certain way which are defined by Driving rules and regulations. Thus, Noodle's claim is very much proved on the Driver.
CHAP 4 Business scenarios answers
Course: Fundamentals Of Business Law (LAW 1101)
University: Baruch College CUNY
This is a preview
Access to all documents
Get Unlimited Downloads
Improve your grades
