Rewrite 2 hours

Based off of Mrs. Kim’s real income, we computed the mean to be $37,760.48. The mean indicates what Mrs. Kim has earned on average for the past fifteen years. Next, the median was computed to be $37,853.88. The median is the midpoint of the distribution of the real income. This means that half of the observed incomes are less than the median, and the other half are greater than the median. The median real income is slightly larger than the mean income creating a slight skew to the right. This could indicate that she normally makes a little more than her mean real income. In addition, the calculated variance of $426,971.30 is considered small. Since the variance is small, we can conclude the observed incomes are fairly close to the mean. The data is not spread out showing us that her income did not fluctuate a lot during the fifteen years of her work. Lastly, the standard deviation was calculated to be $653.43. The standard deviation of $653.43 indicates that 99.7% of her income during her fifteen years of working would lie between three standard deviations from the mean. Putting this into layman terms, most of her income should lie between $35,800.19 – $39,720.77.

Our firm would advise to use mean income to forecast future earnings depending on certain factors. According to our calculations, there was little fluctuation of Mrs. Susan Kim’s real income. Due to the small variation, standard deviation, and little fluctuation from the mean, the mean income would be a very good ruler for estimating future earnings on the account that nothing will change until she is retired. Moreover, if Mrs. Kim was going to be promoted, or was already promoted this year, and was going to receive a big raise, then the mean real income would not be a good forecast of future earnings. We need to look at all possible circumstances in detail before coming to a decision. However, if all things are as stated and unchanged, the mean income will be an excellent measure for future earnings.

Would the merchant’s defense relieve Baron Art Mart Inc. from liability under the cause of action of false imprisonment?

Our firm has concluded that Baron Art Mart will most likely not be relieved from liability under the cause of action of false imprisonment. Mr. Jimmie Lee, Loss Prevention Manager, used excessive force to prevent Ms. Susan Kim from leaving the store. Mr. Lee “grasped” Ms. Kim by the arm and shoved her back to the store causing Ms. Kim to lose her balance where she fell and hit her back on one of the checkout counters, according to both Mr. Lee and Ms. Kim.

In addition to false imprisonment, Ms. Kim also suffered bodily injury due to excessive force used by Mr. Lee. Even though the physical harm was not caused intentionally, Mr. Leenegligently executed his task by causing bodily harm to Ms. Kim. In the case Paul Caldwell vs. Todd Kheler, Mr. Todd Kheler was held 100% liable for causing bodily injury due to negligence tort. Even though Mr. Kheler did not intentionally hit the vehicle occupied by Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Caldwell was awarded a total of $1,500,000: $50,000 for past lost wages and $1.5 million for future lost wages due to the bodily damages caused by Mr. Caldwell when he struck Mr. Kheler’s disabled vehicle.

According to Article 215, in order for it to be an authorized detention then 1) the person effecting the detention must be a peace officer, a merchant or a specifically authorized employee of a merchant, 2) the party making the detention must have reasonable cause to believe that the detained person has committed theft, and 3) the detention was conducted in a reasonable manner - ie. a) Whether the merchant threatened the customer with arrest, b) whether the merchant coerced the customer, c) whether the merchant attempted to intimidate the customer, d) whether the merchant used abuse language towards the customer, e) whether the merchant used forced against the customer, f) whether the merchant promptly informed the customer of the reasons for the detention, and g) whether the detention took place in public next to others, 4) The detention must occur on the merchant's premises, and 5) The detention may not last longer than for a reasonable period of time.

We have also come to the conclusion that there was no intentional tort in this case by Ms. Kim, therefore, also not being relieved from liability under the cause of action of false imprisonment. Ms. Kim was in fact looking for a calligraphy set in the area Mr. Lee stated that he noticed a set missing after witnessing Ms. Kim looking at them prior to her rushing to exit the store.