Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc., Advertisement
Has WIRETIME, Inc., committed any torts? If so, explain.
The conduct of WIRETIME, Inc. may fall into the category of intentional tort where the business has deliberately placed an ad defaming a competitor within the industry. BUGusa, Inc. may have a case against WIRETIME, Inc. for libel, since WIRETIME, Inc. clearly has published defamatory remarks about the company. BUGusa, Inc. creates, designs, and sells its own electronic recording devices. Several state and federal law enforcement agencies use these devices. Any accusation about the integrity of its business may prove costly if it loses sales in international markets.
There are four elements at work here which all may be used to prove defamation. The first is the defamatory statement about the quality and the reliability of the equipment BUGusa, Inc. uses in the business. Second, the publication claims the products sold are low quality is the dissemination to a third party in a well-known magazine. Third, Specificity is an element WIRETIME, Inc. may be guilty of, since it makes claims that are specific about BUGusa, Inc.’s reputation. Damages are the fourth element, in which BUGusa, Inc. may claim losses if it loses the ability to expand into new markets around the world. “Defamation is a false statement directed specifically at a party, company, or product, aired to a third party, and resulting in pecuniary harm to the victim” (Melvin, 2011. p. 217).
Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet)
Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts? If so, explain.
The tortfeasor in this scenario is WIRETIME, Inc. who has solicited Janet to break her employment contract (restrictive covenant) with BUGusa, Inc. and work for them. WIRETIME, Inc....
... middle of paper ...
...rior because of the frolic exception (Melvin, 2011, p.255).
In the event that BUGusa is liable for Brian’s damages (bodily and or his vehicle), BUGusa can sue Brian for not acting with due care while representing the company.
Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Sally)
Sally may have a successful case against BUGusa, Inc., for what torts? Explain your answer.
BUGusa, Inc. could be guilty of providing a defective product to mainstream consumers to purchase that falls under “strict liability tort” (Melvin, 2011, p. 208). Sally injury incurred from faulty equipment that was not part of the original design. BUGusa willingly and purposely did not install the insulator that could have prevented Sally injury. BUGusa refused to install the insulator to lower production cost.
BUGuas could face a lawsuit, the monitoring equipment was defected which caused Sally to have an injury
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
The issue before the court is whether Zagat Survey, LLC was guilty of disparagement or trade libel against Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. I believe the court’s decision should be that Zagat Survey, LLC is not guilty of disparagement against Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. According to our textbook, disparagement “is false statements about a competitor’s product, services, property or business reputation” (Cheeseman 98). Listed below are the reasons that I believe that Zagat Survey, LLC should be found innocent against the claim of disparagement.
Nurse finders later assigned Drummond to work at a Kaiser facility as a medical assistant. The Plaintiff Sara Montegue was a medical assistant at Kaiser. Drummond and Montague had a disagreement, Montague didn’t think it was much of a big argument to report it. Both Drummond and Montague had a discussion about misplaced lab slips where Drummond raised her voice. A few weeks after the discussion, Montague left her water bottle at work. Montague later drank from her water bottle and her tongue and throat started to burn and she vomited. Drummond admitted that she had poured carbolic acid found in a Kaiser examination room into Montague’s water
This design defect, however, does not mean that the plaintiff is awarded since the design defect was not the proximate cause of injury for Cheyenne. Due to Gordon’s modification of the seat belt, Ford is not liable for the injuries that Cheyenne suffered. Stark ex. rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 365 N.C. 468, 472, 723 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2012). The evidence supports the idea that her spinal cord injury was a direct result of placing the seat belt behind her back. Preemption as a theory that would bar the Starks from recovering does not apply in this case, since the federal government’s regulations do not make manufacturers immune to design defect claims. Stark’s claims of inadequate warnings likewise do not apply since the misuse of the product, it’s alteration, is the proximate cause of injury. Had the modification of the seat belt not been the proximate cause of injury, and instead a contributing factor, the court might have decided that Stark was only twenty percent responsible for the injury that occurred. This amount of contributory negligence would not have barred them from recovering, according to Indiana Statutes, and Ford would have been liable for the
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14
Had they been able to do so, Chili’s, the principal in the agency relationship, would have been responsible for the tortious conduct of the patron, the agent. (Cheeseman, p.503) The tort remedies that would have been recoverable from Chili’s might have included “medical expenses; lost wages; pain and suffering; emotional distress; and, in some cases, punitive damages.” (Cheeseman, p.503)
With Takata, we see a company attempting to profit from a faulty product. This has lead to the injuries of many people and threatened the lives of countless more. The company was not acting prudently just so they could meet the demands of just-in-time manufacturing. They dove deep into the excess of Aristotle’s mean, depicting the decision makers of the company as greedy and no longer of virtue. Todd Rutherford, the founder of GettingBookReviews.com, can also be labeled the same. He began a company that generated fake reviews of books so as to sway consumers to purchase them. He blatantly went under the guise of an actual consumer and lied in order to generate income. It would be acceptable, under the Doctrine of the Mean, to lie if one’s objective were ultimate happiness. But when one lies in such excess, as Rutherford did, it is not supported. Both of the actions taken by each company were voluntary and not under any external compulsion. The two were acting incontinent with qualification and knowingly making unfair decisions devoid of any rectificatory justice as well. Takata was accepting full price for defective, mishandled and even dangerous products, while Rutherford was taking money for something that is supposed to be a free tool and intended to be made by actual consumers. In addition, Takata took it a step further by vacating distributive justice. When they ran secret tests to determine the safety of certain air bag canisters, Takata immediately became responsible for issuing a recall to all products. But instead, they put consumers in the hands of chance and distributed unequal products to them, even though every customer paid an equal
We may become subject to product liability claims, which could harm our financial condition and liquidity if we are not able to successfully defend or insure against such
According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?
A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.
exploited by companies and criminal investigators (Eschholz and Rosa, 579; ch. 12, par. 1). In
Even though the principal does not authorize, ratify, participate in, or know of the misconduct, he/she may be held for an agent’s tort committed in the course and scope of the agent’s employment. As noted in Case Study 1, an agent is to comply with all lawful instructions received from the principal and persons designated by the principal concerning agent’s actions on behalf of the principal. A principal who is under a duty to provide protection is subject to liability to such others for harm caused to them by the failure of such agent to perform the duty. A principal is not relieved from the separable part of a contract which he/she authorized the agent to make by the fact that the agent under took. Even where the agent’s unauthorized act constitutes a fraud on both the principal and the third person, the partial validity rule is applicable.
During the summer and fall of 2014, Sirius XM, an American satellite radio broadcasting company, was found guilty of consumer fraud. The company’s means of fraud included, but was not limited to, misleading advertisements and unfulfilled promises. After many consumer complaints, the issue was taken to court. There, 45 United States Attorney Generals announced that Sirius XM Satellite Radio was guilty of misleading, unfair, and deceptive practices which violated state consumer protection laws (Hood, 2014). During the act of defrauding customers, the company also engaged in unethical business behaviors. Due to the fraudulent and unethical decisions and actions made by Sirius XM, the company will most likely forever be looked at through a different