Use the scenarios in the Bugusa, Inc. , link located on the student website to answer the following questions. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. , Advertisement Has WIRETIME, Inc. , committed any torts? If so, explain. WIRETIME, Inc. places an ad in a magazine stating that BUGusa devices were low quality and did not work for more than a month. The tort is defamation. Defamation occurs when one party makes a false statement about another. A third party heard or read the statement must be about a particular party, and damages such as loss of business result of the statement.
WIRETIME stated a false statement about the product only lasting a month and that they were low quality in order to make their product more desirable. It is libel defamation since it was in written in a magazine. It is specific since is targets BUGusa, Inc. product, and there is damages for loss of revenue from the statement. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet) Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts? If so, explain. Janet has a two year contact with BUGusa, Inc. that if she gets fired or quits from BUGusa she is not allowed to work for a competitor.
Janet informs WIRETIME that she has a contract and WIRETIME offers Janet 10% increase over her current pay and also gives her a $5000 signing bonus to come to work for them. The tort is contract interference which falls under business competition torts. This is a breach of contract since Janet has a contract with BUGusa, Inc. and WIRETIME knew of the contact and still pursued her. It would be considered tortuous interference with existing contractual relationship. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter) Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc. , may have for Walter’s actions.
First it says that Walter found out that Steve worked for WIRETIME and how did he know that? Therefore Walter accusing Steve with no proof would be defamation. Also Walter detained Steve for six hours this would be false imprisonment and during this false imprisonment he threaten bodily harm to Steve which would then be an assault. Walter’s crimes would fall under an intentional tort because he knew what he was doing and used force. BUGusa, Inc. would be found liable for Walters actions because Walter is their employee and the incident was on BUGusa’s property.
The employees at BUGusa, Inc.have the right to be protected while at work and something happening under their noses would be considered negligence on their part. BUGusa’s tort would be unintentional because they did not commit these crimes themselves but are to blame just the same for not preventing such a thing from happening. Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. , Plant Parking Lot What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer. The situation could have been prevented. BUGusa, Inc. is responsible for their employees’, visitors’, and vendor’s safety as long as they are on their property.
First the parking lot should be as well maintained as the building itself. There should not be any lights out and if a crime wave is in the area then the company should hire security to secure and maintain the area to ensure it is safe. There should be posted signs reading that the company is not responsible for stolen items from vehicles. In any business there should be cameras and security at a dock because of the merchandise being brought in. The dock should never be unsupervised it is an entry way into the business and therefore is unsafe to be left unguarded.
Employees and the vendor being robbed while he is waiting for the dock boss to return from lunch fall under strict liability. The company would be held liable for not taking safety precautions. The only argument presented is that the company did provide a well-lit parking lot but did not change the burnt out lights or make changes for the rising crime to help protect their employees, visitors, and vendors. Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Randy and Brian) What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer.
Negligence was committed by Brian by breaching his duty by speeding and failure to break when entering the intersection when not clear. Randy had a duty to yield; he was turning left and should yield to any vehicles that will be entering the intersection before he would be able to clear. Both parties acted with negligence with failure to yield (Randy) and failure to break and not speed (Brian). If one or both had been doing their part, the accident may not have happened and the injuries would not have occurred. The injuries happened with in proximity of the accident, and there were actual damages to both parties.
BUGusa, Inc. can use the comparative negligence defense. The portion of the negligence would be divided up into percentages. Both parties will be liable for some of the negligence instead of one. Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Sally) Sally may have a successful case against BUGusa, Inc. , for what torts? Explain your answer. BUGusa, Inc. had failed to put in an insulator in one of their equipment in an earlier model that was still being used by the Shady Town police department. Sally DoGood was injured when the equipment shorted.
BUGusa, Inc.was negligence in the design of their equipment by leaving out the insulator that will protect against a short in the wiring. BUGusa, Inc. had a duty to design a product that would be safe for all to use. They left out the insulator because of cost. There is a case since she was injured and most likely would not have been injured if the insulator had been in place. She was injured in the proximity of the incident and she had suffered injury to her body. She has a case of negligence against BUGusa, Inc. Sally DoGood can also go after BUGusa, Inc. for strict liability.
She will not have to prove negligence on the part of the manufacturer. The manufacturer has the duty to provide a safe product knowing that the buyer will not inspect the product for defects and the product causes harm to another from having a defect (Melvin, 2011, p. 227). Under strict liability the seller, including manufacturer is responsible for the product even if they had taken all the proper steps to ensure the product was safe. References Melvin, S. P. (2011). The Legal Environment of Business: A Managerial Approach: Theory to Practice. Retrieved from the University of Phoenix eBook Collection database.