David, an 89-year-old war hero with no living relatives, drove himself at night to a local hospital when he experienced shortness of breath and a headache. When he entered the emergency room (ER) he was placed in a wheelchair and briefly seen by an ER doctor. He was told that he could not be admitted because he was a veteran and had to go to a VA hospital, which was 90 minutes away, for treatment. David was wheeled into the hallway to wait for transportation to a VA hospi-tal. The night shift was very busy. After sitting in the hall for five hours, David complained that he needed to lie down. The ER staff, who had been trying to move him to a VA hospital with no luck, finally transferred him by ambulance to a local nursing home. David had a massive stroke shortly after being admitted to the nursing home and died six weeks later. a. Does there appear to be negligence in this case? In your opinion, who might have acted on behalf of David? In your opinion, would contributory negligence be a defense if there is a malpractice lawsuit relating to David’s death

Can you please help me answer this?

Lend Co. discovered that one of its employees, Dana, is an alcoholic. Her manager realized that Dana's alcoholism must be the reason for her absenteeism. To help Dana overcome her alcoholiśm, the employer provided her with counseling services and also asked her to make a firm choice between treatment and discipline. Lend Co. also offered outpatient treatment, and Dana participated in the program without success. When all of these efforts failed, Lend Co. offered to provide inpatient treatment, and Dana refused. Lend Co. fired Dana. According to the courts: O A. Dana has a valid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act because she willingly participated in the outpatient treatment, even though it did not produce positive results. O B. Lend Co. is not liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act because it offered a reasonable accommodation, and Dana refused. O C. Lend Co, is liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act because it failed to offer Dana time off from…

Leon A. Tashof operated a store known as the New York Jewelry Company. The store was located in an area that served low-income consumers, many of whom had low-paying jobs and had no bank or charge accounts. About 85 percent of the store’s sales were made on credit. The store advertised eyeglasses “from $7.50 complete,” including “lenses, frames and case.” Tashof advertised this sale extensively on radio and in newspapers. Evidence showed that of the 1,400 pairs of eyeglasses sold by the store, fewer than 10 were sold for $7.50; the rest were more expensive glasses. The Federal Trade Commission sued Tashof for engaging in bait-and-switch marketing, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. a) Explain what a bait and switch is. b) Was Tashof’s conduct in this case ethical? c) Who wins, and why?