Velasquez, M. (2012). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River:
Velasquez, M. (2012). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River:
On August 12, 1996, Plaintiff, Ann Culpepper, filled action against defendant, Hermann Weihrauch KG, ETC., seeking damages for injuries she sustained after an accidental shooting from the gun she owned that was manufactured by Weihrauch. Ann Culpepper imposed liability on Weihrauch under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine of 1979. This doctrine provides liability “if a company manufactured, designed or sold a defective product, which by unreasonably unsafe conditions, injured someone or damaged their property when such product, unaltered, was put to its intended use.”…
John Stokely is responsible for injuring the motorcyclist while driving a vehicle from AAA Auto Dealers. Employers are vicariously liable under the respondeat superior doctrine. In the respondeat superior doctrine, in most cases, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the scope of employment. John Stokely used the company’s vehicle for personal reasons, regardless of what they were, and negligently collided into and injured someone on a motorcycle. John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers. Not only did he use the company’s car for personal reasons, his boss accompanied him on the visit to a family member’s house for dinner. The boss was excusing John Stokely’s behavior, allowing him to use company property for a different purpose other than what it was intended for. John Stokely’s boss accompanied him to his cousin’s house so it can be argued that John Stokely had “permission” to do what he wanted. The boss will be held responsible by the owner(s) of AAA Auto Dealers as well by allowing John Stokely to act outside of his job description.…
Eventually, fear of legal liability forces them to expose the deviance. In the case, “Why Should My Conscience Bother Me?,” B.F. Goodrich Co., created a faulty aircraft break. The people within the company knew that the break would fail if it was used, but they continued to forge tests…
"In determining whether liability exists under a duty-risk analysis, a plaintiff must prove that the conduct in question was the cause-in-fact of the resulting harm, that [the] defendant owed a duty to [the] plaintiff which [the] defendant breached and that the risk of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached." The court used a different set of principles to determine DOTD’s liability. “The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that: (1) the DOTD had custody of the thing that caused the plaintiff's injuries or damages; (2) the thing was defective because it had a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the DOTD had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and did not take corrective measures within a reasonable time; and (4) the defect in the thing was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's…
The backhoe operator can not be charged with a crime in this case even though his mistake is what lead to the accident occurring. Because the Hanousek was the supervisor and “could have prevented” the accident from occurring the law lays the responsibility solely on him. The backhoe operator would basically be unable to be convicted because most corporations have clauses in place to shield employees and leaving all the responsibility on their superiors.…
1. Absolutely not. Individual managers should not be held responsible for the unethical behavior of other people in the organization. After all, Solomon did not personally do anything wrong. I disagree that individual managers should not be held responsible for the unethical behavior of other people in the organization. The reason I disagree with this is Solomon was the CEO and President of Forest Laboratories Inc. in addition to being the chairman of the company. For him not to know what is going on in a company in which he holds so much power is irresponsible and does not make much sense. He was key in getting Celexa started at Forest due to the inspiration of his son’s bouts of depression. I do not know for certain that he was not aware of the fact that they were marketing the use of Celexa in pediatrics and the kickbacks they gave Pediatricians who prescribed Celexa.…
In tort law this is a groundbreaking case in our nations history. It helped launch an idea of proximate case. This new meaning would consider that a defendant is only liable the harm if it is reasonably foreseeable. Proximate cause is now has a boundary on the range of tort liability. I believe that the majority opinion is stronger because of their argument for proximate cause. If the box did not have explosives in it the accident would not have occurred so there was no way the workers could have foreseen the explosion because they thought it was a normal…
3.) Could the backhoe operator who punctured the pipeline also be charged with a crime in this situation? Explain The backhoe operator can not be charged with a crime in this case even though his mistake is what lead to the accident occurring. Because the Hanousek was the supervisor and “could have prevented” the accident from occurring the law lays the responsibility solely on him.…
Please be advised, the Kuwait housing rental rates paid by Northrop Grumman have been reviewed. Northrop pays substantially less for a 2-bedroom apartment, in the same area all inclusive, for a 6-month lease. The COLSA rate, being on a 1-year lease, should be less than what Northrop Grumman pays. Instead, it is $1000.00 higher.…
In Goodrich case, the engineers should have paid more attention on building brakes that would have been compatible with military requirements rather than adjusting data and manipulating testing procedures to meet the requirements. Additionally, the decisions were mostly taken by the hierarchical authority like Warren and Line despite Lawson’s resistance. Others like manager Van Horn were silent as they followed ‘don’t know- won’t hurt’ philosophy (p.63). This example supports argument made by Winner that the interpretation of social and political order (authority) varies and applies differently in distinct circumstances (p.39). In this case, a democratic power structure could have worked better in order to take decision to change the brake…
Davis’ first argument to defend the lethal decision of Lund is that Lund was not trained to think like a manager. His background was in engineering. He then goes on the state that Engineers are typically…
He is not held accountable for the lost money. When Nagel 's outlook on responsibility is applied to assess this situation, we see that there was a better decision that could have been made. If the teller had the objective knowledge about the button under the desk that the manager had, he could have prevented the robber from stealing the bank 's money. However, if he only had this objectivity and not his subjectivity, he would not be in the position to produce the volition at all. The teller did not, in this case, choose the best decision, but at the same time is not fully responsible for the loss of the bank 's money. The teller is partly held accountable for the lost money because there was an alternative choice that would have made the overall outcome better off. Unfortunately for the teller, the knowledge of the hidden button was not made aware to him. This is why the teller is only partly responsible. Ginet asserts that responsibility is to be judged by the specific event while Nagel implies that there are different degrees of responsibility that vary with the amount of information that the agent has.…
In this paper I plan to evaluate the scenario concerning Bobby, ACE Sports, the Nurse, the Surgeon and City General Hospital. I plan on explaining why each party should be found negligent, what type of negligence they should be charged with and how the Emergency Medical Treatment &Labor Act (EMTALA) could have prevented the loss of Bobby’s hands.…
Facts: Matt Theurer was an 18 year old adult that worked at McDonald’s part time. His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities, worked for the National Guard, and worked for McDonalds. McDonald’s informal policy did not allow high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or split shifts. There was a special clean-up week McDonald’s held, Theurer worked five nights. One night he worked until midnight, another until 11:30pm, two nights until 9pm, and another until 11pm. On Monday, April 4th, 1988, Theurer worked from 3:30 until 7:30pm, followed by the clean up shift beginning at midnight until 5am on April 5th, and then he worked another shift from 5am until 8:21am. During that shift, Theurer told his manager he was tired and asked to leave from his next regular shift. The manager accepted his request, and Theurer began to drive home. He was driving 45 miles per hour on a two lane road when he either fell asleep or became drowsy. Theurer crossed the dividing lane into on-coming traffic, and crashed into Frederic Faverty’s minivan. Theurer was killed and Faverty was seriously injured. Faverty settled his claims with Theurer’s estate, and then he filed suit against McDonald’s.…
Other than the fine, what could be other consequences for the company following this accident?…