BLW 342 Exam 1 Cases Question and answers already passed
0 view 0 purchase
Course
BLW 342
Institution
BLW 342
BLW 342 Exam 1 Cases Question and answers already passed
Soldano v. O'Daniels - correct answer Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
Year: 1983
Court: California Appellate Court
Information:
- Plaintiff's father shot & killed at saloon, patron came into Circle Inn & asked bartender to call polic...
BLW 342 Exam 1 Cases Question and
answers already passed
Soldano v. O'Daniels - correct answer ✔Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
Year: 1983
Court: California Appellate Court
Information:
- Plaintiff's father shot & killed at saloon, patron came into Circle Inn & asked
bartender to call police or let him use the phone, bartender refused
- Plaintiff alleges: Circle Inn employee did not fulfill his legal duty to help
Issue: Does a business incur liability if it denies use of its telephone in an
emergency?
Verdict: In favor of Soldano, so yes O'Daniels was liable
- Harm was foreseeable & imminent, certainty of injury
- While may not have had a duty to help, DID have a duty to NOT HINDER
others from helping
Griffith v. Southland Corp. - correct answer ✔Chapter 2: Business Ethics and
Social Responsibility
Year: 1992
Court: Maryland Appellate Court
Information:
- Griffith off duty police officer who got involved in a fight
- Son ran inside and told 7/11 employee to call 911, but she didn't
Issue: Was there a duty to take action by 7/11 Employee? Was it foreseeable
that no call would result in injury? Ethical?
Verdict: In favor of Southland Corp.
, - It is foreseeable that a police officer could be beaten up due to the scope of
his job, therefore the gas station owner isn't liable. (Fireman's Rule)
Hooters of American Inc. v. Phillips - correct answer ✔Chapter 3: Dispute
Resolution
Year: 1999
Court: Arbitration
Information:
- Hooters initiated alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program among
employees. Phillip signed agreement but did not get a copy of the rules
- Phillips quit and refused to arbitrate based on the unfairness of the
arbitration rules
- Phillips notified them that she intended to file suit for sexual harassment and
discrimination, hooters filed suit to compel arbitration
Verdict: In favor of Phillips
- Court said that the hooters rules were so unfairly one sided that their only
possibly purpose was to undermine the neutrality of the proceedings (fairness
requirement)
Miss Universe v. Monnin - correct answer ✔Chapter 3: Dispute Resolution
Year: 2013
Court: U.S. District Court S. District of NY
Information:
- Monnin accused Trump (aka Miss Universe) of rigging the Miss Universe
Pageant
- Publically said top 16 and final five were scripted
- Private Arbitration
Verdict: In favor of Miss Universe
- Arbitration award for angry rants on social media, texts, etc.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Academia199. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $12.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
