Six_Assessed_Questions

Armond R. Dowdell Law/531 Mr. Charnell Six Assessed Questions Facts: An English professor puts a comment on a student’s composition which says, “Can’t you write at all' You are writing at a third grade level and will never be able to graduate from this university!” The student is extremely upset and sues the professor for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Issue: Did the professor cause emotional distress on the student, if so can he be found guilty' Rule: To prove intentional emotional distress, the plaintiff must show: 1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. The definition of outrageous is subjective, but it should be more than mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions. Application: The professor wrote some negative comments on the students paper, but it is undetermined whether or not it caused the student emotional stress. The student will have to prove this in court. This will be unlikely because most courts do count emotional distress Conclusion: Unfortunately the case won’t hold up in court and the student will lose. The professor however will probably lose his job. Facts: Dorothy Yu, an employee of Northwest Pipeline Corporation, was found to have in her possession a confidential personnel document that she was not authorized to possess. She admitted possession and identified Enser, who worked in the records department, as the source of the document. Both Yu and Enser were terminated for violating Northwest's confidentiality policy. Northwest then informed the Utah Job Services that Yu had been fired for this reason and therefore was ineligible for unemployment compensation. Selected non-supervisory Northwest employees were also informed of the reasons for Yu's termination. Yu filed a defamation suit against Northwest. Issue: Yu was fired for having unauthorized documents without permission. Amidst her firing Northwest Pipeline informed the Job Services and other employees about the reason why she was fired. Does Dorothy Yu have a suit for defamation of character' Rule: The elements of a cause of action for defamation include: 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another; 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and 4. Damage to the plaintiff. In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print. Application: No false statements were made by Northwest about Dorothy Yu because she admitted she had the documents. In order for Yu to receive unemployment northwest had to tell the Job Services why she was terminated. Conclusion: Dorothy Yu does not have a case because she was rightfully terminated due to the fact that she violated company policy, plus she admitted her guilt. Facts: Laura promised her roommate Betsy that she (Laura) would "take care" of getting renter's insurance on their apartment. Two months later, when the apartment was broken into and looted, Betsy discovered that Laura had not purchased the insurance. Is there any theory under which Betsy might be able to recover damages from Laura in this case' Issue: Can Betsy recover damages from Laura Rule: The elements of promissory estoppels are (1) a clear and definite promise, (2) that the promissor should have expected that the promise would induce reliance and that there was a change in the promisee’s position due to reliance on the promise, and (3) that injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. In order to prevent injustice, the court imposes liability through promissory estoppels. Application: Laura promised that she would get the renter’s insurance on the apartment. Laura failed to follow through on her word, which led to Betsy not being about to file a claim. Conclusion: Betsy can sue Laura to replace the misplaced items. Facts: Jack applied to Intex Corp., a company with 15 or more employees, for a job maintaining and repairing its copy machines on an "as needed" basis. Jack has his own tools. Jack is also trying to get contracts with other companies to repair their copy machines. If Jack is hired, is he a part-time employee or an independent contract' Issue: Is Jack a part-time employee or an independent contract Rule: Independent Contractors are not covered by the FLSA because they lack bargaining power regarding the terms of their employment. They are hired on a “need” basis. Application: Jack is hired on a “as need” basis and he has his own tools as well, plus he’s trying to get other contracts. Conclusion: Jack was hired as an independent contractor; the company does have an option to hire him as a regular employee if he is working solely for them for a period of time or extend his contract as an independent contractor. Facts: Ewers, who owns a saltwater aquarium with tropical fish, bought several seashells, a piece of coral, and a driftwood branch from the Verona Rock Shop. Just before the purchase, the sales clerk told Ewers that these items were "suitable for saltwater aquariums, if they are rinsed." After making the purchase, Ewers took the items home, rinsed them for 20 minutes in a saltwater solution, and put them in his aquarium. Within a week, 17 of his tropical fish died. The "rinsing" required to prevent their deaths is a week-long cleansing process that involves soaking the shells and the coral in boiling water. Assume that Ewers did not know the correct "rinsing" procedure. Issue: Who is at fault for what happened to the aquarium; The clerk or Verona' Are the sales clerk and Verona Rock Shop responsible for what happened to Ewers aquarium' Rule: Four elements must be present for a product liability case to be considered under the negligent tort principles: • The particular defendant owes a duty to the particular plaintiff to act as a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. • There is a breach of such a duty by the defendant—that is, a failure to act reasonably. • There is an injury, including personal injury or property damage. • There is a causal link between defendant's breach of duty and injuries sustained by the plaintiff. There was no evidence of negligence of the store. Application: The sales clerk told him that he needed to rinse the merchandise that he purchased. There was not a clear understanding of what the clerk meant by rinse. Conclusion: Neither the clerk nor the shop is at fault because Ewers misunderstood the information that was giving to him when he assumed that it meant something. Fact: Maintenance Contractors, Inc., owed $13,600 to Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. Robert Pilkerton, the majority shareholder of Maintenance Contractors, caused Maintenance Contractors to cease operations. Twelve days later, Robert Pilkerton incorporated R.E. Pilkerton, Inc, which carried on the same business as Maintenance Contractors. Are Pilkerton and R.E. Pilkerton, Inc., liable to Westinghouse on the $13,000 debt' Issue: Are Pilkerton and R.E. Pilkerton, Inc., liable to Westinghouse on the $13,000 debt' Rule: A business structure in which an individual and his/her company are considered a single entity for tax and liability purposes. A sole proprietorship is a company which is not registered with the state as a limited liability company or corporation. The owner does not pay income tax separately for the company, but he/she reports business income or losses on his/her individual income tax return. The owner is inseparable from the sole proprietorship, so he/she is liable for any business debts. Application: Mr. Pilkerton started another company to avoid paying the debt. He is still liable for the debt because he is the majority owner. Conclusion: Mr. Pilkerton is liable for the debt even though he changed companies; the same laws still apply because his paper work and business license is in his name. The new company cannot be held liable because no transactions state that they accumulated debt under the new company.