Bugusa Case Study

University of Phoenix Material

BUGusa, Inc., Worksheet

Use the scenarios in the BUGusa, Inc., link located on the student website to answer the following questions.

Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc., Advertisement
Has WIRETIME, Inc., committed any torts? If so, explain.

A Tort was committed by WIRETIME, Inc. which means “a civil wrong where on party has acted, or in some cases failed to act, and that action or inaction causes a loss to be suffered by another party” (Melvin, S.P., 2011) The statement made by WIRETIME, Inc. will potentially harm Bugusa, Inc. reputation. A statement made by WIRETIME, Inc. accusing Bugusa, Inc. products were low quality and did not work past a months’ time. This type of statement is a defamatory “A false and defamatory
statement concerning a party’s reputation or honesty, or a statement that subjected a party to hate, contempt, or ridicule. In order to qualify as a defamatory, the statement must have a tendency to harm the reputation of the plaintiff” (Melvin, S.P., 2011). Due to this statement Bugusa, Inc. will endure loss or damages of customers due to unfavorable advertisement made by WIRETIME, Inc.

Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet)
Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts? If so, explain.
WIRETIME is committing a tortious interfered with a contractual relationship. Because the HR manager for WIRETIME was made aware of the no compete contract between Janet and BUGusa. Because Janet has chosen to accept WIRETIME’s offer and violate her contract BUGusa will incur additional cost in replacing her and training a replacement. As the head of R&D Janet will have knowledge of a number of trade secrets as well as important confidential information from BUGusa. In this situation BUGusa indefinitely has a case against WIRETIME as well as Janet.

Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter)
Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc., may have for Walter’s actions.

Walter’s actions could put Bugusa, Inc. in danger of intentional tort, which is “on where the tortfeasor was willful in bringing about a particular event that caused harm to another party” (Melvin, S.P., 2011). False imprisonment of Steve being detained in a sound proof room for six hours without merchant’s privilege has also put Walter and Bugusa, Inc. in trouble of committing torts. Merchant’s Privilege is “A narrow privilege provided for under the restatement to shield a merchant for liability for temporarily detained a party who is reasonable suspected of stealing merchandise” (Melvin, S.P., 2011). Walter coerced Steve by threatening him to give information is a result of intentional tort which is “a claim for intentional conduct that results in mental reaction such as anguish, grief, or fright to another person’s actions that entails recoverable damages” ("Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Law & Legal Definition", 2015). Walter was threatening and detained Steve could cause emotional distress depending on how Steve takes the situation and the level of stress that it caused him.

Scenario: BUGusa, Inc., Plant Parking Lot
What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer.

This is a case of neglect on the part of BUGusa. Some possible defenses for the company will be that the company was not aware of the threat present in the parking area. Additionally the presence of crime has no relation to the presumed lack of light. The fact that lights were burnt out has no direct link to the crimes that were committed. This will be an extremely hard case for BUGusa to defend its self in because of the level of neglect for the growing situation on the property.

Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Randy and Brian)
What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer.

In this scenario, both Randy and Brian are at fault and have committed the tort of Negligence.
(Melvin, 2011) states “Negligence is an accidental (without willful intent) event that caused harm to another party.” (p.208). The defenses available to BUGusa are comparative negligence and assumption of risk. Using comparative negligence, BUGusa would argue the cause of the accident was partly, or ultimately, Randy’s fault by not yielding the right of way. Under this defense, BUGusa would ask a jury to assign, by way of percentage, a proportion of blame to each party – e.g. 30% Brain and 70% Randy. In this example, Brian/BUGusa would only be required to pay 30% of the damages
suffered.

Using a defense of assumption of risk, BUGusa could argue that had Randy yielded, he would have seen the van driven by Brian. However, by failing to yield, he did not see any oncoming traffic and assumed the risk of a potential accident with another vehicle.

Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Sally)
Sally may have a successful case against BUGusa, Inc., for what torts? Explain your answer.

In this scenario, Sally may have a successful products liability case against BUGusa under the torts of negligence and strict liability.
According to (Melvin, 2011) “Products liability refers to the liability of any seller (including the manufacturer, retailer, and any intermediary seller such as a wholesaler) of a product that, because of a defect, causes harm to a consumer.” (P.226). Sally could argue BUGusa were negligent by not including the insulation needed on the equipment just to save on production costs. However, a more appealing option for Sally to pursue would be a strict liability tort because she doesn’t need to prove the elements of negligence. Sally could argue that BUGusa are strictly liable for her injuries because they placed a product on the market without insulation and she was injured as a
result.