BLW 342 Exam 1 Cases Question and answers already passed
4 keer bekeken 0 keer verkocht
Vak
BLW 342
Instelling
BLW 342
BLW 342 Exam 1 Cases Question and answers already passed
Soldano v. O'Daniels - correct answer Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
Year: 1983
Court: California Appellate Court
Information:
- Plaintiff's father shot & killed at saloon, patron came into Circle Inn & asked bartender to call polic...
BLW 342 Exam 1 Cases Question and
answers already passed
Soldano v. O'Daniels - correct answer ✔Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
Year: 1983
Court: California Appellate Court
Information:
- Plaintiff's father shot & killed at saloon, patron came into Circle Inn & asked
bartender to call police or let him use the phone, bartender refused
- Plaintiff alleges: Circle Inn employee did not fulfill his legal duty to help
Issue: Does a business incur liability if it denies use of its telephone in an
emergency?
Verdict: In favor of Soldano, so yes O'Daniels was liable
- Harm was foreseeable & imminent, certainty of injury
- While may not have had a duty to help, DID have a duty to NOT HINDER
others from helping
Griffith v. Southland Corp. - correct answer ✔Chapter 2: Business Ethics and
Social Responsibility
Year: 1992
Court: Maryland Appellate Court
Information:
- Griffith off duty police officer who got involved in a fight
- Son ran inside and told 7/11 employee to call 911, but she didn't
Issue: Was there a duty to take action by 7/11 Employee? Was it foreseeable
that no call would result in injury? Ethical?
Verdict: In favor of Southland Corp.
, - It is foreseeable that a police officer could be beaten up due to the scope of
his job, therefore the gas station owner isn't liable. (Fireman's Rule)
Hooters of American Inc. v. Phillips - correct answer ✔Chapter 3: Dispute
Resolution
Year: 1999
Court: Arbitration
Information:
- Hooters initiated alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program among
employees. Phillip signed agreement but did not get a copy of the rules
- Phillips quit and refused to arbitrate based on the unfairness of the
arbitration rules
- Phillips notified them that she intended to file suit for sexual harassment and
discrimination, hooters filed suit to compel arbitration
Verdict: In favor of Phillips
- Court said that the hooters rules were so unfairly one sided that their only
possibly purpose was to undermine the neutrality of the proceedings (fairness
requirement)
Miss Universe v. Monnin - correct answer ✔Chapter 3: Dispute Resolution
Year: 2013
Court: U.S. District Court S. District of NY
Information:
- Monnin accused Trump (aka Miss Universe) of rigging the Miss Universe
Pageant
- Publically said top 16 and final five were scripted
- Private Arbitration
Verdict: In favor of Miss Universe
- Arbitration award for angry rants on social media, texts, etc.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper Academia199. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €12,26. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
