Project 1 (Week 4) This project requires you to identify and analyze legal issue
ID: 446877 • Letter: P
Question
Project 1 (Week 4)
This project requires you to identify and analyze legal issues and to make recommendations based on one or more fact patterns. The issues will relate to the concepts covered in weeks 1, 2, and 3 about the legal environment of business and business organizations.
Project:
1. Review Grading Rubric.
2. Review the following scenarios and provide in depth answers to the questions.
3. Submit completed assignment in Word or PDF format to the Assignment Folder.
Report Format Requirements:
Label each Part of analysis, as Part I A., Part I B., Part II A, Part II B
Analyses should be comprehensive, fully supported/justified/explained, specific, and detailed in rationale (this is a most important requirement of this project)
Analyses should be paragraph format
All in text citations must be in APA proper format
Part I A and Part I B should each be a minimum of 2-3 paragraphs per part, but may be longer, for a total of a minimum of 4 paragraphs total for Part I
Part II A should each be a minimum of 3-4 paragraphs, but may be longer
Part II B should be a minimum of 2-3 paragraphs, but may be longer
Use at lease one relevant case FOR EACH PART, Part I and Part II; the cases may be assigned reading cases or cases you research
Follow directions for assignment closely
Read the following case scenario.
Case Scenario: Foods, Inc., a large retail super market store that sells a variety of products, has had an eventful week.
Part I:
There have been heavy rains in the area all week. On Wednesday, a ceiling tile that had become wet from a leaking roof in Foods due to the heavy rain storms earlier in the week fell and hit some bags of peanuts causing the nuts to spill across the store aisle. Edie, a customer, entered the aisle, slipped on the peanuts and broke her leg and arm. The manager of Foods was unaware of the leaking roof and the wet ceiling tile and unaware that the peanuts had spilled onto the store floor.
Part II.
On Friday, a small group of political protesters carrying signs and quietly chanting were marching back and forth the full length of the public sidewalk in front of Foods. Foods encompasses the entire block by the public sidewalk with entry and exit doors located directly in the center of the store building, and with privately owned parking in the back of the store. Sometimes the protesters were at either of the two ends of the sidewalk in front of Foods, and thus, not directly in front of the entry/exit door doors to Foods. The protesters did not walk on or enter the private parking lot owned by Foods; the protesters did not stop and congregate in front of the store or its entry/exit doors at any time. The management of Foods believed that the protestors were impeding the ingress and egress of customers into Foods end therefore interfering with business. Foods called the police to have the protesters removed.
The police did not arrest the protesters but did require them to stop marching and move away from Foods.
Assignment
Part I:
A. How likely is Edie to win a negligence case against Foods for her injuries resulting from slipping on the peanuts? Why?
B. Consider whether any, legal defense(s) could be raised by Foods. Are any legal defenses likely to be successful in negating liability for Foods? Why or why not? (Tip: Stick only to the facts in the case, do not assume any facts not given.)
Part II:
A. The protesters want to sue the City for violation of their constitutional rights. Specifically, what legal claim could the protesters sue for and why?
B. Could the protesters be convicted of trespassing against Foods? Why or why not?
Explanation / Answer
Part I:
A. How likely is Edie to win a negligence case against Foods for her injuries resulting from slipping on the peanuts? Why?
Answer : Edie has very less chances to win. Its completely accident. In this case manager is unaware about this incident.Again the main concern is about , the company is not invited Edie customer to come & purchase .But its Edie is decision to go & purchase.
Its clear from the case that there is negligence from organization / company about the tracing or rectifying the issue.They fail.But at the same time Edie customer also failed to see the situation while entering into shop.So there is negligence from Edie side also.So there are very less chance for Edie to win a negligence case against Foods for her injuries resulting from slipping on the peanuts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Consider whether any, legal defense(s) could be raised by Foods. Are any legal defenses likely to be successful in negating liability for Foods? Why or why not? (Tip: Stick only to the facts in the case, do not assume any facts not given.)
Answer :
Suppose if Edie raises his / her complaint in court then Shop managers can defend theme selves in following way.
1) First up all explain this is cause of because of natural activity like rain.
2) This took place on sudden basis.
3) It may be possible that rain was heavy so before understating the seriousness of issue customer might have suffered.
4) With negligence of shop , customer Edie is also responsible or having negligence that why he / she might have faced a problem.
On above points shop can be successful in legal system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II:
A. The protesters want to sue the City for violation of their constitutional rights. Specifically, what legal claim could the protesters sue for and why?
Answer : Here the protesters are very angry .They are marching in front as well as at back side of the shop.Now these protesters on behalf of the Edie customer who got the leg injuries because of ceiling leakage in due to rain water .
Now here the negligence is from both the side .May be % more or less.But this is fact.
Here legal claim could the protesters sue for are of the following
1) To recover all the medical cost of the Edie customer for injury
2) Assurance now onward for not happening such incidences again
3) To take a preventive measures for natural calamities as well as other problems.
etc
These can be the claim asked by protesters to shop mangers through legal system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Could the protesters be convicted of trespassing against Foods? Why or why not?
Answer :
No , protesters cant be trespassing against Foods.Here there is no any issue related with food .Issue us arises in the facility or infrastructure of shop.That is not directly related with the food.So protesters can sue to shop owners on facility but not on the ground of food.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.