Discussing Issues Concerning the Wrongful Death Claim - Assignment Example

Business Law WEEK 5 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Putting a limit on the award of punitive damages is a considerably sensible guideline. While the compensatory damages are for the reimbursement for the loss of the plaintiff, the purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant in case of solid and unambiguous evidence of the commitment of crime. The award of huge amount of money in the name of punitive damage, may give rise to certain complications. Additionally, since the award of these damages is in the hands of the jury, there is a risk of corruption of the legal system, and may give rise to an abnormal shift in the balance of power. 2. The Liebeck v. McDonald’s case is a perfect illustration of the modern civil justice system which allows the individuals to rise for their rights against the autonomy of big corporate companies. In my opinion, the award of punitive damages in addition to the compensatory damages was sufficiently justified but $2.7 million is an outrageous amount of money for such case. The decision of the judge to reduce the punitive award was reasonable as this case might have led to several similar cases where a person might have caused intentional damage to himself in hopes of large reimbursement sums. 3. Privacy is a big concern for public figures, and the invasion of personal space is the violation of their rights as a human being. The law must offer more privacy to such individuals by offering strict action against paparazzi photographers and media personnel. Loss of privacy should not be considered a price of success at all. The publication of any material (photograph or written) regarding the private life of celebrities must be prohibited unless a proper consent is acquired. WEEK 5 ESSAY QUESTIONS: 1. An employee’s defamation in front of a potential employer without any issuance of privilege from the employee is the issue. There are strict laws against employers who endanger or damage their employees’ reputations by conveying false information to other potential employers or co-workers. The victimized employee can sue the employer for defamation. Since Gates was never proven guilty of theft therefore, the allegations made against him might be false. To post notices around the office, or mentioning the allegations to another company’s personnel officer, thus, would not only be unethical but also make me liable for a defamation lawsuit. 2. The legal issue is the wrongful detention for doubt of shoplifting. The existing rules establish the presence of sufficient probable cause for guard’s action. The woman was approached by the guard, outside the store, following the correct protocol for these circumstances. The store guard was right in his judgment for stopping Caldwell in doubt of shoplifting, as she was in fact exhibiting suspicious behavior. However, after thoroughly searching her purse, the guard should not have asked her to return to the store and that can be considered as wrongful detention. The plaintiff should not be awarded any punitive damages. A sincere apology from the store’s administration should suffice in this case. WEEK 6 ESSAY QUESTIONS 1. The wrongful death claim made by the deceased’s widow against the railroad for its negligence or inadequacy of the warning devices is the issue. The law exempts the operators of railroad from negligence in case of a casualty when the victim is on the railroad against the rules and safety precautions. Apparently, the security measures by the rail road (bell and red light) were adequate and the deceased crossed the warning line and ignored the warning. Thus, the widow’s claim is illegal and the judgment should be in the favor of the defendants. 2. The legal issue is the claim of workplace injury due to employer’s negligence. According to all prevalent laws, an employee is entitled to take legal action against his employer for workplace injuries resulting due to the employer’s negligence. In this case, Ryder was at fault for not getting the door fixed despite several requests. The improvised nylon rope might be a primary cause of the injury, but its replacement was triggered by the breaking of strap, against which the employer was warned several times. The appellate court should rule in favor of Powers, charge the defendant and compensate the injured employee. 3. The issue here is GMC’s entitlement for filing a motion of summary judgment. In legal terms, a summary judgment can be granted if the claims made in the motion are proved to be unambiguous and that the case can proceed without a full trial. Considering the facts, the allegations of (1) no duty to Davis, (2) no factual causation and (3) no foreseeable harm, by GMC are invalid. The manufacturer company had the duty of care in this case, as the truck malfunctioned and stalled on a busy highway and posed lethal danger to the drivers. Proper measures to warn the drivers from a safe distance should have been taken. The claim of no factual causation doesn’t hold, as the accident would not have happened, if the truck was not parked in the middle of the highway. Also, the harm was fairly foreseeable. Thus, the motion for summary judgment must be dismissed. WEEK 6 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 4. It would be fair to hold Lonnie’s company accountable for the incident. Given Steve’s record of violence and misconduct, he should not have been hired. It is the responsibility of the hiring managers of the company to make sure the candidate they are about to hire is a good fit for the company and is safe to be around other employers. Lonnie should take action against both Steve and the responsible persons in the company. 5. A person should be held accountable for his actions. If voracious consumption of alcohol is an individual’s own choice, then he alone should face the consequences of his actions. However, in some circumstances it can be considered a responsibility of the persons around him to either make him stop, or take some action to prevent any harm. For example, if the person serving alcohol observes violent intentions in an intoxicated person, he should refuse to serve him more. WEEK 7 QUESTIONS Case Study: The legal issue is the unlawful seizure and search of cell phone, and gathering evidence from it. The matter of searching through the contents of a cell phone resides in the grey area of current legislature. The constant technological advancements have made cellphones much like computers/laptops, which do require a warrant (David). In this case the evidence gathered from the phone was used against the alleged dealer. However, the information obtained from the phone would have been eventually retrieved from the service provider or after the issuance of the warrant. The nature of tried crime is a serious felony, and in this scenario the police was rightly given the benefit of doubt in legislature. As the judge of Ohio Supreme Court, I would uphold his conviction. WEEK 7 ESSAY QUESTIONS: 3. The legal issue in this case is the determination that whether the defendant or the government should bear the burden of proof. According to the prevalent laws, there are two possible choices in this scenario. If the jury is made to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Karin had acted willfully while purchasing illegal firearm, she would be proven guilty and sentenced accordingly or the defendant has to bear the burden of proving duress (the standard of proof relatively lower that of proving beyond reasonable doubt) by proving all four the conditions of duress. There is a possibility of abuse of the duress defense by the defender to escape liability in cases like these. In my opinion, the judge is correct in granting Karin the burden of proof, as the alternative way might be too strict for a battered woman case like this. 4. The presence of enough probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is the main issue here. The law allows the police to acquire a warrant if enough proof of the crime is present. In this case, the informant successfully bought drugs from Dorian during a planted purchase, providing with a solid ground to issue a search warrant for Dorian’s house. Even though, the informant was unsuccessful in buying anymore drugs during the second planted transaction. The acting of police on the warrant was lawful and had sufficient probable cause as Dorian has once given enough indication of his involvement in criminal activity. 5. The imposing of an unorthodox form of punishment, public shaming, is the issue in this case. The law prohibits the judges of imposing such sentences which are imposed with only the humiliation of the defendant kept in mind. However, if there is a chance that the defendant might learn from his mistake and will not repeat the criminal behavior, the punishment should be implemented. In this case, the punishment though seems unusual but is not cruel at all because the motive is not to humiliate the defendant, but to prevent him from relapsing into criminal behavior, and public shaming is the best way to ensure that. Therefore the conviction should be upheld for this case. Read More