Solution Manual for
Business Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 12th Edition
Chapter 1-20
M
Chapter 1
ED
Table of Contents
Consider… .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Consider… 1.2 ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Consider… 1.3 ............................................................................................................................................ 2
C
Case Problems .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Case 1.1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
O
For the Manager’s Desk ................................................................................................................................................ 4
The Cover-up versus the Crime, page 11 .................................................................................................. 4
Ethical Issues ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
N
Case 1.1, page 10 ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Business Strategy ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
N
COVID-19 Lockouts and Business Civil Disobedience ................................................................................ 5
Chapter Review ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
O
Answers to Chapter Questions and Problems ........................................................................................... 6
Economics, Ethics, & the Law: The Cost of Corporate Wrongdoing ........................................................ 12
IS
SE
Consider…
Consider… 1.2
After he enrolled in the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), Damon Thompson
experienced auditory hallucinations. He believed other students in the classroom and dormitory
were criticizing him. School administrators eventually learned of Thompson’s delusions and
U
attempted to provide mental health treatment. However, one morning Thompson stabbed fellow
student Katherine Rosen during a chemistry lab. Rosen sued the university and several of its
employees for negligence, arguing they failed to protect her from Thompson’s foreseeable violent
R
conduct.
UCLA is a state educational institution. Based on the decision in the Avila case, what should the
court decide? Consider whether UCLA has a duty to protect students from injury on the campus
and, if so, what types of injuries. Be sure to consider what is different in this factual pattern from the
© 2022 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 1
website, in whole or in part.
, facts in Avila. What will the impact be on students, faculty, and administrators pending on which
way the court decides on the issues of liability and duty? Be sure to consider the purposes and
characteristics of law in evaluating the claim Ms. Rosen for injuries. [Regents of the University of
California v Superior Court, 413 P.3d 656 (Cal,2018)]
M
Solution
The trial court denied UCLA summary judgment. UCLA filed a petition for writ of mandate, requesting an
order directing trial court to enter summary judgment in its favor. The Court of Appeal granted the
ED
petition. The Supreme Court granted review, superseding the opinion of the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the university had duty of care to protect students from foreseeable
violence during the chemistry lab, reversing a long line of precedent.
This case is different from the Avila case in that UCLA had knowledge of the potential harm that the
student could do. In the Avila case, the conduct was such that it could not be anticipated except perhaps
C
the possibility that players have disobeyed the rules of the game, but there was no direct knowledge
about the pitcher’s tendencies to bean batters. In this case, UCLA was aware of the problems the
student had and was working with the student. The case was a warning to universities about the
O
importance of curbing the behaviors of students and then, when necessary removing them from the
campus as a danger to themselves and other students. The court noted that the scope of the duty is
based on the extent of the relationship the student had with the university.
N
The immunity of government entities was curbed in Avila and now the courts are simply dealing with
the concept of duty. What is the duty of government entities? How far does it extend? What actions
must they take? [Regents of the University of California v Superior Court, 413 P.3d 656 (Cal. 2018)]
N
Consider… 1.3
Every state, county, and city has laws that regulate the maximum speed for their roadways. Yet,
O
surveys indicate that nearly 100% of us admit to driving above the speed limit. What
philosophy of law do we follow when we decide which laws to obey, how closely we follow
those laws, and when we will follow them? Is there a risk to society when we make our own
decisions about following the law?
IS
Solution
Speeding is an example of the norm shifting. That is, there is a law, but few people follow the law and
SE
the result is that the law becomes meaningless. Some philosophers fear that disregard of the law on an
individual basis could mean that we are introducing anarchy—the law has no effect. Others would
follow the normative standard of doing what is acceptable to others.
U
Case Problems
Case 1.1
R
1. Outline the case history—what each of the courts decided in the case.
© 2022 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 2
website, in whole or in part.
, Solution
Lower court held that the community colleges were immune, so it never reached the duty issue.
The court of appeal held that the community colleges were not immune and found that they
had breached their duty to Jose.
M
2. Explain the standard now for the liability of government entities.
Solution
Although there is immunity for government entities for injuries from recreational activities
ED
(hazardous and otherwise), the court held that government entities still have duties toward
those who are using their facilities.
3. What interests is the court balancing?
Solution
C
The court is balancing the longstanding protection of government entities from tort liability with
the injuries that can result when there is no supervision of those involved in government-
sponsored activities. There was also the longstanding precedent that is being changed.
O
Government entities will need new insurance levels and will need to change their involvement
and supervision requirements.
N
4. Does the court change the previous standard for liability of government entities? Why or why
not? What effect will the decision have on government entities?
N
Solution
See answer to above—the holding is a fundamental change in the liability and responsibilities of
government entities.
O
5. Why was there no breach of duty by the community colleges?
IS
Solution
Because being “beaned” is a risk in the game and one that the colleges could not prevent. Also,
Jose was still able to walk and got the attention that he needed.
SE
6. Does it matter that “beaning” a batter violates the rules of the game?
Solution
The court takes note that professional baseball prohibits beaning, but beaning happens and that
it happens is not the result of any actions by sponsors but individual choices by players.
U
However, sanctions for beaning could deter such activities—something the court does not
discuss.
R
© 2022 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 3
website, in whole or in part.
, For the Manager’s Desk
The Cover-up versus the Crime, page 11
The decisions in the Avila and UCLA cases are part of a nationwide trend that has expanded
M
liability and imposed additional duties on those who own and run facilities where the public is
present. The scope of that duty requires, at least in most cases, that business owners and
public entities take appropriate steps to ensure safety once they become aware of the danger.
That duty is difficult for universities that are working with students such as the one in the UCLA
ED
case or employees who have become aggressive in the workplace.
In both situations, administrators are trying to balance the rights of the student or employees with
the need to protect other students and employees in the situation. Both students and employees
have rights to be at school or work. If those rights are to be taken away, the administrators must
build a record to establish the need for their removal. The rights issues are covered in Chapter 5, the
C
duty issues are covered in more detail in Chapter 9, and the employee rights issues are covered in
Chapters 16, 19, and 20.
O
Solution
The challenges in dealing with problem students are great because there are due process rights that the
students hold. Expulsion and suspension are actions that deprive them of a property right—to be there
for obtaining an education. At the same time, administrators have to worry about the safety of other
N
students when there are behaviors that endanger them. Administrators have to carefully keep reports of
incidents and be sure to coordinate all information that is coming in about problem students.
Administrators should also keep careful records and conduct oversight of areas where there are any
N
student injuries. Taking steps to prevent the injuries is also important.
Ethical Issues
O
Case 1.1, page 10
Discuss the ethics of the pitcher’s deliberate “beaning” of Jose. Are the standards of ethics
IS
different in sporting competitions? If an action cannot penalize what happens in the game,
what are the effects on players’ behaviors during the game?
Solution
Ethics is conduct that goes beyond the rules, but it certainly includes the obligation to follow the rules. As
SE
the court notes, “beaning” or other intentional injuries to other players is prohibited in baseball.
However, one of the problems is that the lack of enforcement (no sanction for violating those rules) shifts
the norms of behavior during the game away from the rule to an accepted or tolerated level of behavior.
However, as the case illustrates, there can be serious injuries resulting from the conduct.
One of the difficulties with the rule is in establishing that the conduct was intentional. Being hit by a
U
baseball is a risk assumed in baseball. Umpires have difficulty proving that the intentional hits were
intentional.
R
The bottom line is that we are dependent on the honor of those playing the games to not violate the
rules.
© 2022 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 4
website, in whole or in part.
