WIRETIME has committed an intentional business related tort known as Defamation. In this case all four elements of defamation are present. A defamatory statement was made, it was spread to a third party, the statement was very definite to one company, and it caused damages to BUGusa business.
Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet)
Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts? If so, explain.
In this case, WIRETIME has committed a Tortious Interference with Existing Contractual Relationship Tort. WIRETIME had encouraged Janet to break the existing contract with BUGusa for their employment. WIRETIME had precise knowledge of and literally saw the contract. They actively hindered the contract and caused losses to due to training a replacement for Janet.
Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter)
Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc., may have for Walter’s actions. Walter, the security guard, was acting as a representative of BUGusa protecting its sensitive information. Walter discovered Steve was a spy for Wiretime, a competitor, and considered his duty to expose him to BUGusa by gathering the proper information from Steve. The security guard committed the tort of False Imprisonment on Steve. Because Walter is employed by BUGusa, Walter is the agent and BUGusa is the principal, making BUGusa ultimately responsible for Walter’s actions because Walter acted under the doctrine of apparent authority (Melvin, 2011, pp.251)
Scenario: BUGusa, Inc., Plant Parking Lot
The Term Paper on BugUSA, Inc. – Case Scenario
... information Steve has given to WIRETIME. When Walter tells Steve that he will hurt Steve if he does not tell him everything, Walter has committed the tort of ... one of their competitors. C. Walter, a security guard for BugUSA, learns that Steve really works for WIRETIME. Walter takes Steve to a small soundproof room ...
What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer.
The delivery guy could file a tort suit of negligence against BUGusa,Inc. BUGusa knew that a few of the lights in the dock area were out. They also knew that there were robberies happening on their premises and should have taken better precautions. Additionally, because the driver had to wait for the manager (employee of BUGusa, Inc) to return from work, that places further liability on the company. If the manager were not on lunch, the driver would not have had to stay around in the dock area, thus he would not have been attacked. The driver not only lost his wallet but he also lost company property as a result of the incident.
BUGusa, Inc.’s best defense in this case would be Assumption of Risk. The attacks in their parking lots were well known to everyone in the community. Therefore, the driver of the truck was aware of the potential risk when he decided to wait for the manager to get back from lunch. The company could argue that the driver should have taken more precautions while waiting.
Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Randy and Brian)
What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer.
Although negligence on both parties is involved in this incident, BUGSusa may be defended by Comparative Negligence. It was clear that Randy failed to yield to the right away, an accident occurred. However, at the same time, Brian was not obeying the speed limit which could have contributed to the accident. Therefore, both parties are negligent. In the defense of Comparative Negligence, a percentage will be assigned to determine what amount of responsibility lies on each party.
Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Sally)
Sally may have a successful case against BUGusa, Inc., for what torts? Explain your answer.
The tort that Sally may pursue against BUG and the different types of damages she can request are Under Section 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Product liability. These product claims for Sally are related to design defect and a failure to warn. Since the product design is inherently dangerous. Remember the monitor is not included in the older version. Further Sally may pursue against BUG for a failure to warn. There is no evidence that Sally was warned of the defect in the monitor. It is the responsibility of BUG to warn Sally and all other consumers of its products of manufacturing defects in its products. Sally must make a claim under the standard of strict liability. The doctrine of strict liability in tort applies to defectively designed products.
The Essay on Perfect Taste Bakery Products: Run For Your Life
1. Yes, because of the personal attachment of the dispatcher to the other five delivery van drivers or the so called “favorite”. The dispatcher knows the five of them personally, so the favor of the dispatcher will obviously into the “favorites”. The general manager must either replace and hire a new dispatcher or discipline him and give the appropriate sanction for the wrong doings of the ...
