Bugusa, Inc.: Case Scenarios
Case Scenarios: BUGusa, Inc.
Janelle McNeely, Joseph Leeks, Jamie Dorsey, Scott Jaeger
LAW/421
December 9, 2014
Tad Davis
Case Scenarios: BUGusa, Inc.
Triple click your mouse anywhere in this paragraph to replace this text with your introduction. Often the most important paragraph in the entire essay, the introduction grabs the reader 's attention—sometimes a difficult task for academic writing. When writing an introduction, some approaches are best avoided. Avoid starting sentences with “The purpose of this essay is . . .” or “In this essay I will . . .” or any similar flat announcement of your intention or topic. Read more: Center for Writing Excellence>Tutorials and Guides>Guidelines for Writing Academic Essays.
Case …show more content…
#1: Advertisement
Case #2: Janet
Case #3: Steve and Walter
The commonly accepted definition of false imprisonment defines the tort as the unlawful restraint of another against their will, and without legal justification.
In this scenario, Walter a security guard for BUGusa intentionally restricted the movement of Steve. Walter also made verbal threats to inflict physical harm to Steve if he did not tell him what his intentions were, which could be considered assault if Walter was holding his baton at the time he made those statement. Walter could be liable for false imprisonment and assault. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act imposes civil penalties such as damages and injunctions on those who improperly find out about and use trade secrets and provides remedies for the aggrieved party. Many companies have binding contracts or workplace policies, which prohibit employees from sharing confidential information. Steve is violating the elements of the Uniform Trade Secret Act by divulging secret information from BUGusa to WIRETIME.
Case #4: Plant Parking …show more content…
Lot
Assumption of the risk is a defense raised in personal injury lawsuits. The defense claims that the plaintiff knew that a particular activity was dangerous and thus bears all responsibility for any injury that resulted. The vendor chose to wait in a poorly lit area, which was well known for being the setting of recent crime activity. The manager was not even around at the time. The vendor should have continued his delivery route and came back when the manager had returned from lunch and was ready to receive the shipment.
Case #5: Randy and Brian
In this case, both Randy and Brian should hold a portion of the blame for the accident. If Randy were to take BUGusa, Inc. and Brian to court, their best legal defense would be to ask for comparative negligence. In comparative negligence, the jury divvies damages up, so both the plaintiff and the defendant have to pay damages in the case, though how much each party has to pay depends on the rules of Any State, USA. “Comparative negligence jurisdictions differ among states…if the plaintiff is found to be 50 percent at fault, and the defendant is 50 percent at fault, some comparative negligence states would still allow the plaintiff to recover $5,000 (50 percent of the damages), while other states would prevent him from recovering anything because he is equally at fault with the other driver.” (Wickert, 2013). Through this definition, we can gather that there is at least a chance that if the jury finds that Brian and Randy are equally to blame for the accident, then any lawsuits against the Brian, or the company, might be dropped, allowing for BUGusa, Inc. to perhaps only have to pay their insurance company a higher premium for the accident, as opposed to premium plus damages.
There is a chance as well that BUGusa and Brian may have the opportunity to claim contributive negligence. In this claim, the defendants (Brian and BUGusa) are claiming that Randy’s negligence in the accident means that the charges filed against Brian and BUGusa should be dropped immediately. Since there are no evident laws in Any State USA, we cannot be sure that contributive laws are not in place there as well as any contributive laws.
Case #6: Sally In the case of Police Officer Sally, she probably has a very good case against BUGusa, Inc.
for strict liability torts. BUGusa, Inc. failed to provide an insulator in their original design for their wire tappers due to the production cost. BUGusa, Inc. has since realized its mistake, yet did not recall the older versions of the equipment, leaving Sally at risk of injury, which is exactly what happened. Strict Liability can be defined, as; “the legal responsibility for damages or injury, even if the person found strictly liable is not at fault.” (USLegal.com, 2014). Under this definition, Sally does not have to prove that BUGusa, Inc. was negligent in their actions producing their product, just that the product in question was defective, and it caused her
injury.
Conclusion
The closing paragraph is designed to bring the reader to your way of thinking if you are writing a persuasive essay, to understand relationships if you are writing a comparison/contrast essay, or simply to value the information you provide in an informational essay. The closing paragraph summarizes the key points from the supporting paragraphs without introducing any new information.
References http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/assumption-of-risk/ http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/imprisonment 's
Strict Liability. (2010-2014). Retrieved from http://torts.uslegal.com/strict-liability/
Wickert, G. (2013, September 5). Understanding comparative fault, contributory negligence and joint and several liability. Claims Journal, Retrieved from http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2013/09/05/235755.htm
Janelle McNeely, Joseph Leeks, Jamie Dorsey, Scott Jaeger
LAW/421
December 9, 2014
Tad Davis
Case Scenarios: BUGusa, Inc.
Triple click your mouse anywhere in this paragraph to replace this text with your introduction. Often the most important paragraph in the entire essay, the introduction grabs the reader 's attention—sometimes a difficult task for academic writing. When writing an introduction, some approaches are best avoided. Avoid starting sentences with “The purpose of this essay is . . .” or “In this essay I will . . .” or any similar flat announcement of your intention or topic. Read more: Center for Writing Excellence>Tutorials and Guides>Guidelines for Writing Academic Essays.
Case …show more content…
#1: Advertisement
Case #2: Janet
Case #3: Steve and Walter
The commonly accepted definition of false imprisonment defines the tort as the unlawful restraint of another against their will, and without legal justification.
In this scenario, Walter a security guard for BUGusa intentionally restricted the movement of Steve. Walter also made verbal threats to inflict physical harm to Steve if he did not tell him what his intentions were, which could be considered assault if Walter was holding his baton at the time he made those statement. Walter could be liable for false imprisonment and assault. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act imposes civil penalties such as damages and injunctions on those who improperly find out about and use trade secrets and provides remedies for the aggrieved party. Many companies have binding contracts or workplace policies, which prohibit employees from sharing confidential information. Steve is violating the elements of the Uniform Trade Secret Act by divulging secret information from BUGusa to WIRETIME.
Case #4: Plant Parking …show more content…
Lot
Assumption of the risk is a defense raised in personal injury lawsuits. The defense claims that the plaintiff knew that a particular activity was dangerous and thus bears all responsibility for any injury that resulted. The vendor chose to wait in a poorly lit area, which was well known for being the setting of recent crime activity. The manager was not even around at the time. The vendor should have continued his delivery route and came back when the manager had returned from lunch and was ready to receive the shipment.
Case #5: Randy and Brian
In this case, both Randy and Brian should hold a portion of the blame for the accident. If Randy were to take BUGusa, Inc. and Brian to court, their best legal defense would be to ask for comparative negligence. In comparative negligence, the jury divvies damages up, so both the plaintiff and the defendant have to pay damages in the case, though how much each party has to pay depends on the rules of Any State, USA. “Comparative negligence jurisdictions differ among states…if the plaintiff is found to be 50 percent at fault, and the defendant is 50 percent at fault, some comparative negligence states would still allow the plaintiff to recover $5,000 (50 percent of the damages), while other states would prevent him from recovering anything because he is equally at fault with the other driver.” (Wickert, 2013). Through this definition, we can gather that there is at least a chance that if the jury finds that Brian and Randy are equally to blame for the accident, then any lawsuits against the Brian, or the company, might be dropped, allowing for BUGusa, Inc. to perhaps only have to pay their insurance company a higher premium for the accident, as opposed to premium plus damages.
There is a chance as well that BUGusa and Brian may have the opportunity to claim contributive negligence. In this claim, the defendants (Brian and BUGusa) are claiming that Randy’s negligence in the accident means that the charges filed against Brian and BUGusa should be dropped immediately. Since there are no evident laws in Any State USA, we cannot be sure that contributive laws are not in place there as well as any contributive laws.
Case #6: Sally In the case of Police Officer Sally, she probably has a very good case against BUGusa, Inc.
for strict liability torts. BUGusa, Inc. failed to provide an insulator in their original design for their wire tappers due to the production cost. BUGusa, Inc. has since realized its mistake, yet did not recall the older versions of the equipment, leaving Sally at risk of injury, which is exactly what happened. Strict Liability can be defined, as; “the legal responsibility for damages or injury, even if the person found strictly liable is not at fault.” (USLegal.com, 2014). Under this definition, Sally does not have to prove that BUGusa, Inc. was negligent in their actions producing their product, just that the product in question was defective, and it caused her
injury.
Conclusion
The closing paragraph is designed to bring the reader to your way of thinking if you are writing a persuasive essay, to understand relationships if you are writing a comparison/contrast essay, or simply to value the information you provide in an informational essay. The closing paragraph summarizes the key points from the supporting paragraphs without introducing any new information.
References http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/assumption-of-risk/ http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/imprisonment 's
Strict Liability. (2010-2014). Retrieved from http://torts.uslegal.com/strict-liability/
Wickert, G. (2013, September 5). Understanding comparative fault, contributory negligence and joint and several liability. Claims Journal, Retrieved from http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2013/09/05/235755.htm