Reference no: EM133468556

Case Study: By the due date assigned, submit your answers to this Discussion Area. Post the assignment directly in the discussion thread and label the answers with the appropriate scenario number. Do not copy the scenarios into the thread with the answers. Start reviewing and responding to your classmates as early in the week as possible. You should review and critique the work of other students, as outlined in the rubric, by the end of the week.

Select two of the scenarios given below and explain the best solution to each. Include comments related to any ethical issues that arise. Support your responses with appropriate cases, laws and other relevant examples by using at least one scholarly source from the SUO Library in addition to your textbook for each scenario.

Case Scenario I-Torts and Product Liability

On his way home from work, Andy Earl stopped at Mad Beach Pub. After leaving the pub, Earl drove his car into a house at a speed of approximately 30 miles per hour. When the car struck the house, the passenger compartment collapsed and Earl was seriously injured. His blood alcohol content was 0.08%. The investigation also discovered that he had been texting at the time of the accident. Earl brought a strict product liability action against the car manufacturer on the grounds that the car was not crashworthy. He also filed suit against the pub for selling him the alcohol.

Question 1: Summarize the statutes from your state related to driving under the influence (DUI) and texting while driving.
Provide the arguments that each party (Earl, the car manufacturer, and the pub) will make at trial.
Explain how the court should rule. Provide support for your decision.

Case Scenario II-Torts

After the extraction of two teeth, Yolanda's dentist, Dr. Harris, wrote a prescription for pain medication and cautioned her not to drive or operate heavy machinery while taking the medication. Yolanda took the prescription to the drive-in window at the local Walgreens pharmacy. The pharmacy was busy and understaffed at the time, and the technician failed to include information about adverse reactions associated with taking the medication. Yolanda took a pill upon leaving the pharmacy and made another stop at the grocery store. After leaving the store, Yolanda failed to stop at a stop sign, and hit another car, injuring the driver of the other car and a passenger.

Question 2: Using the textbook, the laws of your state, and other scholarly sources, explain the potential lawsuits and the probable outcomes for the lawsuits filed by the injured driver against Yolanda, Dr. Harris, and Walgreens.

Scenario III-Employment

Little Rock Catering, located in western Arkansas, provides food for special events and wedding consulting services. The business is privately owned and has seven employees. Sam, a 45-year-old lesbian, applied for the position of event services coordinator and was denied the position. Sam was highly qualified, with 10 years of experience in event planning. Mary Beth, a 21-year-old recent college graduate and member of the owner's church, was hired.

Question 3: Research the state laws on nondiscrimination in Arkansas and your state.

On the basis of Arkansas state law and federal law, what is the probable outcome of a lawsuit based on sexual orientation discrimination?
On the basis of Arkansas state law and federal law, what is the probable outcome of a lawsuit based on age discrimination?
Would the outcome of a lawsuit based on sexual orientation discrimination be different if the catering company was located in your state?

Scenario IV: Product Liability

Shenzhen Limited manufactures electric hair dryers. Julie purchases a Shenzhen Limited dryer from her local Sally's Beauty Supply. Frances, a friend and guest in Julie's home, has taken a shower and wants to dry her hair. Julie tells Frances to use the new Shenzhen Limited hair dryer that she has just purchased. As Frances plugs in the dryer, sparks fly out from the motor, and sparks continue to fly as she operates it. Despite this, Frances begins drying her hair. Suddenly, the entire dryer ignites into flames, severely burning Frances' scalp. Frances sues Shenzhen Limited on the basis of negligence and strict liability in tort. Shenzhen Limited admits that the dryer was defective but denies liability, particularly because Frances was not the person who purchased the dryer. In other words, Frances had no contractual relationship with Shenzhen Limited.

Question 4: Discuss the validity of Shenzhen Limited's defense.
Are there any other defenses that Shenzhen Limited might assert to avoid liability? Discuss fully.