Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
17th Edition
ISBN: 9781337094757
Author: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 8, Problem 19CP
Summary Introduction
Case summary:
The ship M owned by the KT company. At the time of winter season the lake E was frozen and ships and other moored at the harbours on the river B. One night an ice gridlock crumbled upstream, sending big hunks of ice downstream. Hunks of ice started to heap up in contradiction of the ship M. The ship broke loose when a neglectfully built person D to which one mooring chain was devoted dragged out of the crushed.
The ship started moving down the S-shaped waterway severe first and hit another ship T. The ship T also loose from its tie-up, and the two vessels drifted downcast the river together. The dual containers considerably blocked the movement of the waterway, causing frost and water to back up and extra connexions as far as three miles upstream.
To discuss: Whether any one is liable.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
William Brill a truck driver, had just delivered lumber to Queens lumber. As he was returning to his truck he was hit by a forklift driven bv an employee eric vigil. After sustaining serious injuries, Brill sued both Queens Lumber and Vigil for negligence. What elements does brill have to prove to establish negligence? In general, what duty does a driver of a motor vehicle have to pedestrians? On what theory of liability could Queens Lumber be found negligent? Would the result be the same if Brill had failed to look both ways before walking back to his truck? Brill v Queens lumber Co.
John Beck was injured at the Drive-Thru at Taco Bell when an impatient driver behind him fired his gun at John’s car. When would Taco Bell be liable for John’s injuries?
a.
Taco Bell would be liable if John was negligent.
b.
Taco Bell is always liable for John’s injuries because he is an invitee.
c.
Taco Bell could never be liable for John’s injuries.
d.
Taco Bell would be liable if the firing of the shot was foreseeable.
Hawkins slipped and fell on a puddle of water just inside the automatic door to the H. E. Butt Grocery Company’s store. The water had been tracked into the store by customers and blown through the door by a strong wind. The store manager was aware of the puddle and had mopped it up several times earlier in the day. Still, no signs had been placed to warn store patrons of the danger. Hawkins brought an action to recover damages for injuries sustained in the fall. Was the store negligent in its conduct?
Chapter 8 Solutions
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Ch. 8 - Prob. 1COCh. 8 - Prob. 2COCh. 8 - Prob. 3COCh. 8 - Prob. 4COCh. 8 - Prob. 5COCh. 8 - Prob. 1QCh. 8 - Prob. 2QCh. 8 - Prob. 3QCh. 8 - Prob. 4QCh. 8 - Prob. 5Q
Ch. 8 - Prob. 6QCh. 8 - Prob. 7QCh. 8 - Prob. 8QCh. 8 - Prob. 9QCh. 8 - Prob. 10QCh. 8 - Prob. 11CPCh. 8 - Prob. 12CPCh. 8 - Prob. 13CPCh. 8 - Prob. 14CPCh. 8 - Prob. 15CPCh. 8 - Prob. 16CPCh. 8 - Prob. 17CPCh. 8 - Prob. 18CPCh. 8 - Prob. 19CPCh. 8 - Prob. 20CPCh. 8 - Prob. 21CPCh. 8 - Prob. 22CPCh. 8 - Prob. 1TSCh. 8 - Prob. 2TSCh. 8 - Prob. 3TS
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- A gasoline-powered lawn mower that had been used earlier to cut grass was left unattended next to a water heater that had been manufactured by Sears. Expert testimony was presented to demonstrate that vapors from the mower’s gas tank accumulated under the water heater and resulted in an explosion. Three-year-old Shawn Toups was injured as a result. Evidence was also presented negating any claim that Shawn had been handling the gasoline can located nearby or the lawn mower. He was not burned on the soles of his feet or the palms of his hands, and, similarly, the gas can remained in an upright position even after the explosion. Is Sears liable to the Toups in strict product liability? Explain.arrow_forwardThelma purchased a used truck from Hall that had been manufactured by International Harvester. To work on the truck engine, Thelma had to have the cab of the truck raised. When it was so raised, the cab fell unexpectedly and fatally injured Thelma. Suit was brought for her wrongful death against Hall and International Harvester. The suit was based on theories of negligence, strict tort liability, and breach of warranty. The defense was raised that there was no liability because the sale to Thelma had been made “as is” and the truck was a used truck. Were these defenses valid?arrow_forwardJohn Campbell, an employee of Manhattan Construction Company, claims to have injured his back as a result of a fall while repairing the roof at one of the Eastview apartment buildings. He filed a lawsuit against Doug Reynolds, the owner of Eastview Apartments, asking for damages of $1,500,000. John claims that the roof had rotten sections and that his fall could have been prevented if Mr. Reynolds had told Manhattan Construction about the problem. Mr. Reynolds notified his insurance company, Allied Insurance, of the lawsuit. Allied must defend Mr. Reynolds and decide what action to take regarding the lawsuit.Some depositions and a series of discussions took place between both sides. As a result, John Campbell offered to accept a settlement of $750,000. Thus, one option is for Allied to pay John $750,000 to settle the claim. Allied is also considering making John a counteroffer of $400,000 in the hope that he will accept a lesser amount to avoid the time and cost of going to trial.…arrow_forward
- Negligent in failing to give warning of the approach of its train to a crossing, CC Railroad thereby endangers Larry, a blind man who is about to cross. Mildred, a bystander, in a reasonable effort to save Larry, rushes onto the track to push Larry out of danger. Although Mildred acts as carefully as possible, she is struck and injured by the train. a. Can Mildred recover from Larry? b. Can Mildred recover from CC Railroad?arrow_forwardBarbara Rome entered Flower Memorial Hospital to undergo a series of X-rays. When she was ready for the X-rays, she was assisted by a student radiological intern. The intern placed Rome on the X-ray table and strapped her onto the table correctly; however, the intern did not properly fasten the footboard, which was located at the foot of the table. As a result of this error, Rome fell and was hurt when the table was raised. As a consequence, Rome brought a lawsuit against Flower Memorial Hospital, alleging that the ordinary negligence of the intern had caused her injury. In contrast, the hospital argued that the lawsuit involved a medical claim, as defined under the state’s medical malpractice statute. Whether a case involves ordinary negligence or a medical claim would determine whether the state’s two-year statute of limitations for negligence or the state’s one-year statute of limitations for medical claims would apply. This case clearly involves a difference of opinion on the…arrow_forwardOne of several motorized barges being used to carry construction material for the project ran aground on a reef near the bridge as it approached a temporary harbor being used as a depot during low tide. The grounded vessel damaged part of the reef and ruptured the internal fuel tank, causing an oil slick. All nearby maritime traffic had to be halted for several hours as an emergency clean-up crew arrived to control the oil spill and clean the water. Following this, the barge was re-floated approximately 13 hours after grounding and to a dry dock for extensive repairs. A replacement barge had to be brought in on short notice to minimize the additional strain on logistics. Early inquiries have shown that while the crew was experienced, the helmsman was not a local and was unfamiliar with the waters. Additionally, the depot harbor only had one of the two lights making the entrance operational at the time, despite regulations, and the project’s standards both specifying both were always…arrow_forward
- A factory worker named Nazrul of ‘Company Levon’ worked on the production line when his glove captures and his arm was drawn into an in-feed conveyor belt. Although the workers managed to pull him free, he suffered two broken bones in his right arm and a dislocated wrist. The employee missed eight weeks of work after the accident, which took place on March 10, 2018. An investigation by the Human Resources Executive of the company revealed that the company had removed a part of the line, thus leaving a gap in the side of the conveyor belt. The worker put his hand inside the hole to recover some trapped lids. It was then when his glove became entangled, and his arm was drawn into a dangerous moving part of the machine. The officer said that it was inadequately guarded. HE also said: “I am pleased that the worker has made a full recovery, but many other employees sustain permanent disability or impairment because machine safety is being neglected.” “Unguarded or poorly guarded machinery…arrow_forwardOne of several motorized barges being used to carry construction material for the project ran aground on a reef near the bridge as it approached a temporary harbor being used as a depot during low tide. The grounded vessel damaged part of the reef and ruptured the internal fuel tank, causing an oil slick. All nearby maritime traffic had to be halted for several hours as an emergency clean-up crew arrived to control the oil spill and clean the water. Following this, the barge was re-floated approximately 13 hours after grounding and to a dry dock for extensive repairs. A replacement barge had to be brought in on short notice to minimize the additional strain on logistics. Early inquiries have shown that while the crew was experienced, the helmsman was not a local and was unfamiliar with the waters. Additionally, the depot harbor only had one of the two lights making the entrance operational at the time, despite regulations, and the project’s standards both specifying both were always…arrow_forwardA factory worker named Nazrul of ‘Company Levon’ worked on the production line when his glove captures and his arm was drawn into an in-feed conveyor belt. Although the workers managed to pull him free, he suffered two broken bones in his right arm and a dislocated wrist. The employee missed eight weeks of work after the accident, which took place on March 10, 2018. An investigation by the Human Resources Executive of the company revealed that the company had removed a part of the line, thus leaving a gap in the side of the conveyor belt. The worker put his hand inside the hole to recover some trapped lids. It was then when his glove became entangled, and his arm was drawn into a dangerous moving part of the machine. The officer said that it was inadequately guarded. HE also said: “I am pleased that the worker has made a full recovery, but many other employees sustain permanent disability or impairment because machine safety is being neglected.” “Unguarded or poorly guarded machinery…arrow_forward
- In a legal brief on negligence the following statement was made: "Where negligence can be established, it is no defense that the negligent action was in full compliance with all government regulations and permit conditions." Explain why this defense may not be valid.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_forwardA chemical processing company stored toxic waste on its premises. A severe storm caused damaged to the containers storing the waste, which resulted in the spill contaminating nearby pond, which belongs to Sam. The chemical processing company was careful when storing the waste and no allegation of negligence is made. However, Sam claims that the chemical processing company is liable for the pond contamination, even though there is no negligence. Is Sam correct? Explainarrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding BusinessManagementISBN:9781259929434Author:William NickelsPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134527604Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. CoulterPublisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...ManagementISBN:9781305947412Author:Cliff RagsdalePublisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...ManagementISBN:9780135191798Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. LaudonPublisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...ManagementISBN:9780134728391Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. GriffinPublisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134237473Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De CenzoPublisher:PEARSON
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134527604
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...
Management
ISBN:9781305947412
Author:Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...
Management
ISBN:9780135191798
Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...
Management
ISBN:9780134728391
Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134237473
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:PEARSON