Insurance and risk Management

saiaravindc

GroupCaseStudy1.html.zip

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >Insurance and risk Management

AssignmentTemplates/Group Case Study 1.html

INSR-6007

Group Case Study 1

Instructions

Complete the following assignment in groups of no more than 3 or 4. Note the due date for the case study and refer to your detailed class schedule for the submission requirements. This paper will be marked based on the Group Projects Rubric. This assignment is worth a total of 5% of your final grade.

Late submission penalties apply.

Day v Safe Hockey Inc.

During the 2008 NHL regular season Brennen Day suffered a devastating brain injury while playing ice hockey. The plaintiff suffered a serious subdural haematoma (SDH). At the time he was wearing a helmet manufactured by Safe Hockey Inc. Day filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer as well as the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) which is the organization responsible for setting minimum standards for helmets and many other consumer products.

The plaintiffs theory was that the helmet was inadequate for its primary purpose, namely to protect against the type of injury the plaintiff suffered as a result of a rear impact. In order to consider this charge, the Court had to determine the purpose for which hockey helmets are designed.

The helmet did contain the following warning on its box;

“Ice hockey is a collision sport which is dangerous. Severe head, brain or spinal injuries including paralysis or death may occur despite using the helmet.”

In Canada, any claim for negligence relating to products liability requires the Plaintiff to demonstrate not only that the product was either negligently manufactured or designed or that there was a failure to warn but that the negligent conduct, in fact, caused the plaintiff’s loss.

How would you assess the risks inherent in this situation?
What was the manufacturer’s duty and in your estimation did they fulfil their duty or not?
What would be the duty owed by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and could they also be held responsible for the damages?
What defenses would be available to the Defendants in this case?
Based on your observations above discuss some of the possible outcomes of this case.

This assignment is submitted in class in Week 9

Grading Criteria

Access the Rubric for Group Projects.docx

Assignment Resources and Links

AssignmentTemplates/PastedImage_ph6ymig8qipi7wrnawkaxak5fb6meg3a001176352858.tmp

Documents/Rubric for Group Projects.docx

Rubric for Group Project Names _______________________________ _____________________________ Score: ____________________

______________________________ ______________________________

Category	Exceeds Standard	Meets Standard	Nearly Meets Standard	Does Not Meet Standard	No Evidence	Score
Introduction	The introduction is engaging, states the main topic and previews the structure of the paper.	The introduction states the main topic and previews the structure of the paper.	The introduction states the main topic but does not adequately preview the structure of the paper.	There is no clear introduction and the structure of the paper is missing.	Absent, no evidence
Body	Each paragraph has thoughtful supporting detail sentences that develop the main idea. The paper demonstrates the authors fully understands and has applied concepts from the course.	Each paragraph has sufficient supporting detail sentences that develop the main idea. The paper demonstrates that, for the most part, the authors fully understands and has applied concepts from the course.	Each paragraph lacks supporting detail sentences. The paper demonstrates that the authors, to a certain extent, understands and has applied concepts from the course.	Each paragraph fails to develop the main idea. The paper does not demonstrate the authors understands and has applied concepts from the course.	Absent, no evidence
Organization – Structural Development of Idea	Writer demonstrates logical and subtle sequencing of ideas through well-developed paragraphs. In-depth discussion and elaboration in all sections of the paper.	Paragraph development present but not perfected. . In-depth discussion and elaboration in most sections of the paper.	Logical organization; organization of ideas not fully developed. The writer has omitted pertinent content and quotations from others outweigh the writer’s own ideas.	No evidence of structure or organization. Cursory or brief discussions in all sections of the paper.	Not applicable
Conclusion	The conclusion is engaging and restates the topic.	The conclusion restates the topic.	The conclusion does not adequately restate the topic.	Conclusion is incomplete and / or unfocused.	Absent, no evidence.
Mechanics	No errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. No errors in sentence structure and work usage.	Almost no errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Almost no errors in sentence structure and work usage.	Many errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Many errors in sentence structure and work usage.	Numerous and distracting errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Numerous and distracting errors in sentence structure and work usage.	Not applicable.
Citation / Bibliography	All cited works are done in the correct format with no errors. Includes 3 – 5 major references including journals, articles and books as well as internet sites.	Some cited works are done in the correct format. Inconsistencies evident. Includes 3 – 5 major references including journals, articles and books as well as internet sites.	Few cited works are done in the correct format. Includes 2 – 4 major references including journals, articles and books as well as internet sites.	No citations evident. Includes less than 3 references, most or all are internet sites.	Absent.