William Carlton was the sole shareholder in ten New York City corporations, including Seon Cab Corporation. Each corporation owned two taxicabs, and each cab was covered by the minimum $10,000.00 automobile liability insurance required under New York State law. A taxicab owned by Seon Cab Corporation struck and severely injured John Walkovsky, who sued for damages.
Walkovsky named all ten corporations, Carlton individually, as well as the individual driving the cab that hit him, as defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the corporations, although seemingly independent of one another, operate as a single entity, unit and enterprise with regard to financing, supplies, repairs, employees, and garaging. The plaintiff asserted that the multiple corporate structure constituted an unlawful attempt to defraud members of the general public who might be injured by the cabs. He sought to hold Carlton, the sole shareholder of each corporation, personally liable for his injuries.
1. Suppose William Carlton's name was conspicuously displayed on the sides of the taxicabs owned by the corporations and that he, the sole shareholder, actually serviced, inspected, repaired, and dispatched the taxicabs. Would that make a difference as to whether he could be held personally liable?
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Step by stepSolved in 2 steps
- Agents and employees of Deco Arts Corporation and Echo Imitations Inc. are convicted of conspiring to violate a federal law that is punishable by a term of imprisonment and a fine. Can the corporations be held liable for these crimes? If so, how can they be punished?arrow_forwardDescribe the cause of action claimed by the Plaintiffs in their petition. Kelo v. New londonarrow_forwardMoore ran a bakery in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. His business was wholly intrastate. Meads Fine Bread Co., his competitor, engaged in an interstate business. Meads cut the price of bread in half in Santa Rosa but made no price cut in any other place in New Mexico or in any other state. This price-cutting drove Moore out of business. Moore then sued Meads for damages for violating the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts. Meads claimed that the price-cutting was purely intrastate and, therefore, did not constitute a violation of federal statutes. Was Meads correct? Why or why not?arrow_forward
- Joseph Burger was the owner of a junkyard in Brooklyn, New York. His business consisted, in part, of dismantling automobiles and selling their parts. The state of New York enacted a statute that requires automobile junkyards to keep certain records. The statute authorizes warrantless searches of vehicle dismantlers and automobile junkyards without prior notice. One day, five plain-clothes officers of the Auto Crimes Division of the New York City Police Department entered Burger’s junkyard to conduct a surprise inspection. Burger did not have either a license to conduct the business or records of the automobiles and vehicle parts on his premises, as required by state law. After conducting an inspection of the premises, the officers determined that Burger was in possession of stolen vehicles and parts. He was arrested and charged with criminal possession of stolen property. Burger moved to suppress the evidence. Did Burger act ethically in trying to suppress the evidence? Does the…arrow_forwardThe Alberta Motor Association (the Payor) carried on a business of training and providing instruction to individuals who wanted to obtain vehicle operator’s licences. Mr. Bourne (the Appellant) had an arrangement with the Payor to provide such instruction. The Payor had treated Mr. Bourne as an independent contractor from 2018 to 2020. Mr. Bourne was claiming that he was an employee of the Alberta Motor Association in 2020. Should Mr. Bourne be viewed as an employee of the Alberta Motor Association or, alternatively, an independent contractor? List all of the factors that should be considered in reaching a conclusion. The facts in this case are as follows:• the Payor operated as a membership based association; (admitted)• the Payor had clients who wanted to obtain motor vehicle operator’s licences; (admitted)• the Appellant was hired as a driving instructor; (admitted)• the Appellant entered into a written contract with the Payor stating that the Appellant was a contractor and not an…arrow_forwardJoseph Eugene Dodson, age sixteen, purchased a used pickup truck from Burns and Mary Shrader. The Shraders owned and operated Shrader’s Auto Sales. Dodson paid $14,900 in cash for the truck. At the time of sale, the Shraders did not question Dodson’s age, but thought he was eighteen or nineteen. Dodson made no misrepresentation concerning his age. Nine months after the date of purchase, the truck began to develop mechanical problems. A mechanic diagnosed the problem as a burnt valve but could not be certain. Dodson, who could not afford the repairs, continued to drive the truck until one month later, when the engine “blew up.” Dodson parked the vehicle in the front yard of his parents’ home and contacted the Shraders to rescind the purchase of the truck and to request a full refund. a. What arguments would support Dodson’s termination of the contract? b. What arguments would support Shrader’s position that the contract is not voidable? c. Which side should prevail? Explain.arrow_forward
- The Plaintiff, Giselle Girly requests that the Defendants, MMLP, being represented by officers, Henry (Hank) Heman, President,and Noel Fair, Vice President of Sales, answer the following questions, under oath, in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. What is the chain of command and process for hiring, firing, and promotions for MMLP?arrow_forwardIn 1961, Ford Motor Company acquired Autolite, a manufacturer of spark plugs, in order to enter the profitable aftermarket for spark plugs sold as replacement parts. Ford and the other major automobile manufacturers had previously purchased original equipment spark plugs (those installed in new cars when they leave the factory) from independent producers such as Autolite and Champion, either at or below the producer’s cost. The independents were willing to sell original equipment plugs so cheaply because aftermarket mechanics often replace original equipment plugs with the same brand of spark plug. GM had already moved into the spark plug market by developing its own division. Ford decided to do so by means of a vertical merger under which it acquired Autolite. Prior to the Autolite acquisition, Ford bought 10 percent of the total spark plug output. The merger left Champion as the only major independent spark plug producer. Champion’s market share thereafter declined because Chrysler…arrow_forwardRiffe, while serving as an officer of Wilshire Oil Company, received a secret commission for work he did on behalf of a competing corporation. Can Wilshire Oil recover these secret profits and, in addition, recover the compensation paid to Riffe by Wilshire Oil during the period that he acted on behalf of the competitor? Explain.arrow_forward
- In partnership with American Express, Porter Cable requests that all employees at the rank of supervisor and above apply for a corporate credit card to be used for pay for travel, training and similar expenses. Ima Krimnel, the manager of the distribution center, was issued a corporate card and used it to take her husband to Hawaii for their 20th wedding anniversary. If Krimnel does not pay the charges, is Porter Cable liable? Why or why not?arrow_forwardSam Simpleton, a resident of Kansas, and Nellie Naive, a resident of Missouri, each bought $85,000 in stock at local offices in their home States from Evil Stockbrokers, Inc. (“Evil”), a business incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Kansas. Both Simpleton and Naive believe that they were cheated by Evil Stockbrokers and would like to sue Evil for fraud. Assuming that no Federal question is at issue, assess the accuracy of the following statements: a. Simpleton can sue Evil in a Kansas State trial court. b. Simpleton can sue Evil in a Federal district court in Kansas. c. Naive can sue Evil in a Missouri State trial court. d. Naive can sue Evil in a Federal district court in Missouri.arrow_forwardEllen, the owner of a baseball park, is under a duty to the entering public to provide a reasonably sufficient number of screened seats to protect those who desire such protection against the risk of being hit by batted balls. Ellen fails to do so.a. Frank, a customer entering the park, is unable to find a screened seat and, although fully aware of the risk, sits in an unscreened seat. Frank is struck and injured by a batted ball. Is Ellen liable?b. Gretchen, Frank’s wife, has just arrived from Germany and is viewing baseball for the first time. Without asking any questions, she follows Frank to a seat. After the batted ball hits Frank, it caroms into Gretchen, injuring her. Is Ellen liable to Gretchen?arrow_forward
- Practical Management ScienceOperations ManagementISBN:9781337406659Author:WINSTON, Wayne L.Publisher:Cengage,Operations ManagementOperations ManagementISBN:9781259667473Author:William J StevensonPublisher:McGraw-Hill EducationOperations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi...Operations ManagementISBN:9781259666100Author:F. Robert Jacobs, Richard B ChasePublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
- Purchasing and Supply Chain ManagementOperations ManagementISBN:9781285869681Author:Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry C. Giunipero, James L. PattersonPublisher:Cengage LearningProduction and Operations Analysis, Seventh Editi...Operations ManagementISBN:9781478623069Author:Steven Nahmias, Tava Lennon OlsenPublisher:Waveland Press, Inc.