business critical thinking
toonbaylbr
w6.doc.docx
Legal and Ethical Environment: Courts, ADR, and Agency law
• Read: Bagley, C. (2008, April). Winning legally: The value of legal astuteness. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 378-390 (B).
• Read: AMBA610 Custom Text: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11. From Kubasek, N.K., Brennan, B.A., and Browne, M.N. (2009). The Legal Environment of Business: A Critical Thinking Approach (6th ed.). Boston, MA. Pearson Learning Solutions. (This differs from what’s in the syllabus.)
• Read: Read Gizmo, Inc. case posted in the conference area.
• Post a substantive response to Topic 1:• Read: Read The Wheels for Hire case posted in the conference area. •Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ attorneys must post a well-reasoned analysis to support their respective clients’ positions. •Judges should read the arguments posted in Topics 2(a) and 2(b) and post in 2(c) a well-reasoned opinion ruling in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant based on the law and the facts presented. •Will either of their grievances be heard in court? Why?•What will the results of each be?
The Judgment:
The judges should read the arguments posted in Topics 2(a) and (b) and post one main, well-reasoned opinion finding for plaintiff or defendant in 2(c) based on the law and the facts presented.
Judges' rulings.
Becky Sharp and Sydney Carton applied to become administrative assistants for Gizmo, Inc. (GI). After the interviewing process, both were hired and asked to sign contracts that contained the same provision: “If there is any dispute as to employment practiced or employee/employer actions, this dispute will be decided via binding arbitration.”
Both signed the contract after being given ample time to review it and to consult an attorney. Several months later, Sydney became addicted to cocaine, and Becky became pregnant with her first child. When Becky experienced complications during her pregnancy, GI initially agreed to grant her medical leave, but shortly thereafter the company informed Becky that her position had been eliminated due to a “reorganization.”
Fearing that Sydney might have trouble picking up the slack for the recently released Becky, GI asked him to take a surprise drug test. Sydney was confused and alarmed and refused to take the test. GI informed him that because of his refusal, he was fired. Becky decided to file a lawsuit in state court under the state and federal Family and Medical Leave Acts that guarantee pregnant women a set number of weeks off for pregnancy. Sydney, on the other hand, submitted his case to an arbitrator.
Will either of their grievances be heard in court? Why?
What will the results of each be?
Each student must post his or her response to this topic no later than 11:59PM on the final day of this conference week.
Wheels for Hire, a new and used car dealership, hired Sam Spade to perform various duties, such as cleaning and gassing vehicles, moving vehicles from one lot to another and maintaining the showroom and vehicle lots. In this position, Sam had access to keys to the vehicle through an "ignition kiosk access process." Under this process, a designated attendant, Curly Hurley, keeps the keys in a restricted kiosk. When any employee wants to move a company vehicle, s/he must fill out a key "tag" or request form, which contains spaces for the date, time, stock number of vehicle, name of employee checking out the vehicle, and the destination of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle might be taken to a body shop for repairs or to a gas station, or to a company lot at a different location. Every time an employee checks out a vehicle, the reason must be for company business use. It was not necessary to put the expected return time on the tag, but if a vehicle was expected to be gone for a long time, this information was supposed to be put on the tag. Sometimes Curly fills the tag out for the employee. When the tag is completed, Curly adds the information from the tag to key control log, gives the keys to the employee who has requested them, and hangs the tag on the board in the control shack. When the vehicle is returned Curly crosses out the entry for the vehicle in the control log, replaces the keys, and removes the tag from the board. Sometimes vehicles are gone for more than one day, but a new page of the control entry is started each day. Some vehicles may be removed permanently if they are sold from another lot. In these cases, the managers of the other lots call to let Curly know that the vehicle will not be coming back. Sometimes employees would drive cars back and leave the keys with other employees. This practice was acceptable to the dealership.
One day Sam asked Curly if he could use a car for 30 minutes on his lunch break to go to his mother's house. Curly told him it was okay as long as he brought it back because, otherwise, she could get in trouble. Sam took the car and left. On his way back to the dealership, Sam rear-ended a car stopped at a stop light, causing injuries to the driver and a passenger. Sam told a police officer at the scene of the accident that he was on a lunch break from his job and that he had permission to drive the car, but his boss was not aware he had the car.
The plaintiffs sued the car dealership on the grounds that it was responsible for the injuries caused by Sam.
There are three subtopics posted in this topic: 2(a) For the Plaintiff; 2(b) For the Defendant; and 2(c) The Judgment. Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ attorneys must post a well-reasoned analysis to support their respective clients’ positions. This is not a team assignment. It is an individual assignment. Each individual Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ attorney should post his or her argument no later than 11:59 PM on day 4 of this week's discussion.
Judges should read the arguments posted in Topics 2(a) and 2(b) and post in 2(c) a well-reasoned opinion ruling in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant based on the law and the facts presented. Each individual judge is required to post only one decision on the case. Earlier postings are encouraged, if at all possible, in order to give everyone more opportunity to discuss the rulings. Individual judges may ask questions of both sides but should post only one opinion per judge. Everyone should participate in the Judge's topic and discuss your views of the judges' rulings.
The Judge
Individuals assigned the role of Judges should read the arguments posted in topics 2(a) and 2(b), and each individual judge should post a well-reasoned opinion finding for the plaintiff or the defendant based on the law and the facts presented.
Plaintiff A
Wheels for Hire and Sam Spade have a principal – agent relationship where Sam is the employee of Wheels for Hire. Sam, in acting as an agent for Wheels for Hire, has access to the keys of the vehicles owned by Wheels for Hire under the “ignition key access process”, a process that outlines how vehicles may be utilized by the employees for business reasons.
Under this ignition key access process, there is expressed authority by the principal that the agent will utilize the vehicle and act on the principal’s behalf under the principal’s control and consent. When signing out a company vehicle, Sam has a duty of performance, meaning that he must perform within the lawful duties expressed in the agency contract with reasonable care, skill and diligence.
Although Sam was not conducting company business, he was utilizing company property and as such, operating under the authority of the company which makes Wheels for Hire liable for the injuries caused by Sam. At the very least, tort liability may deem both Wheels for Hire and Sam responsible and be found to be jointly and severally liable. Either way, the plaintiff is justified in filing a lawsuit against the dealership, Wheels for Hire.
Plaintiff B
Wheels for Hire is legally responsible for the resulting injuries and damages from the accident involving Sam Spade. This is a direct result of the company having instituted a program, “ignition kiosk access process” (IKAP) and subsequently failing to properly monitor its activity and responsibilities – a direct liability of the company.
Regardless of the reasoning, timing, or circumstance behind Sam Spade’s excursion during his lunch break, the company is still liable for their employees’ conduct and asset use, especially under warranted systems. Sam used a system, IKAP, to check out a company owned vehicle or asset. This, in and of itself, is the company recognizing Sam as an extension of the company, despite possible misinterpretations or misuse of the company system. This specifically means that Sam’s actions can be accounted for on behalf of the company since the company allowed them to happen via their own system of choice.
Additionally, Wheels for Hire has distinctly assigned responsibility and authority in Curley Hurley for the purposes of managing and maintaining the operation of the IKAP. Curley Hurley’s position is recognition on behalf of the company, signifying that the employee using the company asset (vehicle in the situation) is doing so as an agent of the company and acting as a representative of the aforementioned company verifying the prerequisites. Thus, all responsibility is centralized to the company as a whole. In this particular situation, this would mean that Sam Spade’s actions are directly accountable by the company.
Ultimately, the system allows for subordinates or delegated authorities to operate without sufficient oversight. Subsequently, this has allowed Curley Hurley to authorize inappropriate use of company assets as part of a company emplaced system. Additionally, this particular system also has a distinct lack of day to day record keeping that would otherwise be determined paramount, yet the dealership has recognized this system as acceptable. Regardless, Curley Hurley operated as an authoritative agent of the company, authorizing the use of a vehicle by Sam Spade under the guidance and control of Wheels for Hire. This makes the accident, in turn, the responsibility of the company, Wheels for Hire, as a whole.
Plaintiff C PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT TO THE COURT OF COUNTY X
Driver; Passenger, Plaintiffs,
v.
Wheels for Hire; Sam Spade; Curly Hurley; Defendants.
Case No. 14-0001
Plaintiffs, Driver and Passenger, and their complaint, allege as follows:
1. Plaintiff One, Driver, is a citizen of X County, in the state of XX; Plaintiff Two, Passenger, is a citizen of X County, in the state of XX; Defendant One, Wheels for Hire, conducting business in X County, in the state of XX; Defendant Two, Sam Spade, is a citizen of X County, in the state of XX; and Defendant Three, Curly Hurley, is a citizen of X County, in the state of XX.
2. Plaintiff One will be known as Plaintiff and Defendant Two will be known as Defendant unless otherwise specified.
3. On May 9, 2014, Plaintiff was lawfully driving his automobile on Main Street in Anytown, XX.
4. At approximately 1:00 p.m., on May 9, 2014 the Defendant negligently failed to stop at a red light on Main Street, and as a result crashed into Plaintiff's car.
5. As a result of the collision, the Plaintiffs suffered injuries to their person.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in the amount of $xx,xxx,xxx.xx, plus costs of this action.
Chris Ladnier
Attorney for Plaintiffs
23 Bourbon Street,
New Orleans, LA70116
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this matter.
Chris Ladnier
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Supporting Facts:
6. Wheels for Hire, Defendant One, is a new and used car dealership.
7. Wheels for Hire hired Sam Spade, Defendant Two, with duties including but not limited to cleaning and gassing vehicles, moving vehicles from one lot to another, and maintaining the showroom and vehicle lots.
8. Sam Spade had access to keys to all dealership vehicles.
9. Curly Hurley, Defendant Three, maintains the key process which includes a restricted kiosk.
10. Key process consists of requesting employee filling out a key "tag" or request form, key log entry, and key for tag accountability.
11. Customary practice for the key process includes Curly filling out key tag for requesting employee, vehicles are gone for more than one day, some vehicles may be removed permanently if they are sold from another lot via lot manager notifying Curly, and employees would drive cars back and leave the keys with other employees.
Legal Definition:
13. Respondeat Superior - "Under the doctrine of respondeat superior an employer is liable for the negligent acts or omissions of his employee which are committed within the scope of his employment. Liability based on respondeat superior requires some evidence that a master-servant relationship existed between the parties. The test to determine if respondeat superior applies is whether the person sought to be charged as a master had the right or power to control and direct the physical conduct of the other in the performance of the act. If there is no right to control, there is no liability." (REF: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quotation/%5Bfield_short_title-raw%5D_123)
Case Law:
14. Wilson v. United States, 989 F.2d 953, 958 (8th Cir. 1993)
Summary:
15. Per the definition at paragraph 13 and the establishment of the principal-agent relationship at paragraph 7, Wheels for Hire, Defendant One, is liable for Sam Spade's, Defendant Two, negligent act while working within the scope (paragraphs 7 and 12) of his employ by his employer within regular business hours (paragraphs 4 and 12) and following customary practices (paragraph 11).
Chris Ladnier
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Defendant A Plaintiff Vs. Wheels for Hire Defendant’s analysis
Key facts within this case:
•Wheels for Hire does employ Sam Spade to perform various duties such as; maintaining the showroom and vehicle lots, cleaning and moving vehicles from one lot to another.
•Sam Spade had access to keys to the vehicle through an "ignition kiosk access process."
•The designated attendant during the day of the incident was Curley Hurley, who is also employed by Wheels for Hire and has the responsibility of managing the vehicle keys in a restricted area.
•Wheels for Hire’s policy on moving a vehicle is as follows: Any employee who wants to move a company vehicle he or she must fill out a key-tag or request form including the date, time, length of use, stock number of vehicle, name of employee checking out the vehicle the destination of the vehicle and this should only be for company business use.
•It is known that sometimes Curly Hurley fills key-tags out for other employees, adds the information from the tag to key control log then gives the keys to the employee who has requested them and hangs the tag on the board in the control shack. It is then Ms. Curly’s responsibility to cross out the entry for the vehicle in the control log upon return, replaces the keys, and removes the tag from the board. If a vehicle is gone for more than one day she is to create a new page of the control entry for each day and if a vehicle is sold from another lot Ms. Curly is to be notified by the lot manager that the vehicle will not be coming back.
•It is also known that sometimes employees would drive cars back and leave the keys with other employees. This practice was acceptable to the dealership.
Conflict:
•The day of the incident Sam Spade asked Curly Hurley who isn’t a manager if he could use a car for 30 minutes for personal use, which isn’t permitted
•Curly gave Sam verbal authorization to use the vehicle for personal use
•Upon return to the dealership Sam Spade rear-ended a car stopped at a stop light, causing injuries to both the driver and a passenger.
•Sam told police at the scene of the incident that he was on a lunch break from his job and that he had permission to drive the vehicle, but at no time was a manager aware he had the vehicle.
Concluding analysis and arguments:
Since both employees Sam Spade and Curly Hurley violated the companies vehicle use policy Wheels for Hire should not be liable for damages incurred in this case. Sam Spade wasn’t authorized to remove the vehicle from the premises for personal use and Curley Hurley doesn’t have the proper authority to approve any request of that nature. Both individuals were negligent and committed a criminal act by unlawfully removing company property against policy. Each individual should be liable for covering the damages incurred from the incident and Wheel for Hire doesn’t take responsibility for any negligence in this case.
Defendant B
Deffendant’s analysis in the case of Plaintiff vs Wheels for Hire
Facts:
1.
Sam Spade is an employee of Wheels for Hire with various responsibilities to include cleaning and gassing vehicles as well as moving vehicles per need of the dealership.
2.
Curley Hurley is an employee of Wheels for Hire with responsibilities restricting vehicle keys.
3.
Wheel for Hire implemented a system to monitor/restrict employee access to its vehicles.
4.
Sam had permission from Curly to use vehicle for personal reasons on the day of incident.
5.
Sam rear-ended another vehicle at the stop light.
Issues:
1.
Curley Hurley knowingly gave permission to Sam to use company vehicle for personal reasons.
2.
Despite Curley’s approval, Sam did not have the proper permission to use company car for personal reasons.
3.
Sam rear-ended another vehicle during an authorized use of the company vehicle.
4.
Plaintiff is suing Wheels for Hire for Sam’s wrong doing.
Reasons and Conclusion:
Wheels for Hire should not be responsible for damages caused by Sam. As noted Sam did not have proper authorization to use company vehicle at the time of incident. The permission obtained from Curley is not considered valid because acted outside her scope when she authorized for Sam to use company vehicle for personal reasons.
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be liable for negative actions of his employee only if the said employee was acting within his/her scope. However, in this case both Curley and Sam acted outside of their scope and should both be held liable.
Defendant C:
Acting as the defendant for the Wheels for Hire trial, an analysis of the legal reasoning needs to be taken into consideration before giving the defendant response. The legal reasoning process includes identifying facts and issues of the trial.
First, the facts that are identified when reviewing the case are listed as follows:
•Sam is an employee of the Wheels for Hire car dealership performing various duties (cleaning, gassing vehicles, and moving vehicles from one lot to another)
•Sam has access to keys to the vehicle through ignition kiosk
•Curley Hurley, another employee working at the car dealership, manages restricted kiosk. Sometimes she handles filling out the form for other employees. Her every day duties include: placing tag into the log, distributes keys, and hangs the tag from the control shack
•Each employee who wants to drive a car needs to fill out a form to receive the key. The form includes date, time, stock number, name of employee taking it out, and destination.
•Vehicles are used for company use only
•The company does not expect for the return time to be put on the tag but they are supposed to be taking the action if the vehicle is taken out for a long period of time
These facts demonstrate how the company operates when taking out a company vehicle. Employees of the firm agree to these terms and processes through an implied contract. These facts will help support the defendant’s response and answers the complaint of the Plaintiff.
Second, the issues that are identified when reviewing the trial are listed as follows:
•Sam asked Curly is he could use a car for 30 minutes on his lunch break to go to his mothers house
•Sam did not fill out proper paperwork to take out the vehicle
•Sam did not receive proper authority to use the car for this particular scenario
•Curly should not had given authority to Sam to take out the vehicle
•Curly did not properly accomplish her duties (managing the restricted kiosk, placing the tag information into the log, and hanging tag from the control shack)
•When Sam took out the company car he rear ended a stopped car at a stop light which caused injuries to the driver and passenger
These issues offer many reasons why Wheels for Hire should not be held accountable for expensing funds to cover the injuries of the driver and passenger of the vehicle Sam had hit. There are two individuals involved in this case that should be held accountable. The first individual is Sam as he clearly did not use the car for business purposes and was using the vehicle on his personal time rather than work time. Sam also did not implement the form process when taking a company vehicle out to a destination. The second individual is Curly who did not abide by her roles and responsibilities of managing the restricted kiosk for the company. She also wasn’t suppose to give car keys to Sam when the company processes, which is stated in the facts of the case, were not met by either individual. Both Curly and Sam disobeyed civil law and the implied contract that the company had presented and was agreed upon by both employees. Both individuals conducted acts of stealing company property as the company processes were not met and higher authority was not aware of Sam using the vehicle for personal use. Each individual is liable for covering these costs with their personal insurance. Wheels for Hire is not liable for expensing these costs to the plaintiff but the individual employees need to be held accountable for these actions.
Reply to Thread
