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 22CP
Summary Introduction
Case summary:
The company F incorporation fumigated building A and building B by utilizing gas V. The construction A and B is composed with the construction C among them a hall detached by a wall. The building A and construction B evacuated its residents earlier its disinfection. The inhabitants of construction C were remain in their structure while other buildings were handling. The inhabitants of construction C become ill since of the effect of sulfuric fluoride poisoning. The inhabitants of construction C who had been incapacitated sued against the fumigator.
To discuss: Whether the fumigator is responsible for the incident.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Dr Lai went to SUPERSAVE supermarket to buy his groceries: he slipped and fell on a puddle of water on one of the aisles. The puddle has been caused by a leaking refrigerator inside the supermarket. The supermarket had a duty to keep the premises safe for its customers, but it had failed to fix the leak. However the supermarket did put up a warning sign near the puddle to alert its customer to beware of its slippery floor. Dr Lai suffered a broken arm from the result of the fall. Analyse the situation and determine wether the supermarket is liable for Dr Lai's injury. Advise wether Dr Lai has the rights to access damages with the supermarket. Include case laws and examples, if relevant.
One 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…
One 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…
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
- Tube Art was involved in moving a reader board sign to a new location. Tube Art’s service manager and another employee went to the proposed site and took photographs and measurements. Later, a Tube Art employee laid out the exact size and location for the excavation by marking a four-by-four-foot-square on the asphalt surface with yellow paint. The dimensions of the hole, including its depth of six feet, were indicated with spray paint inside the square. After the layout was painted on the asphalt, Tube Art engaged a backhoe operator, Richard F. Redford, to dig the hole. Redford began digging in the early evening hours at the location designated by Tube Art. At approximately 9:30 P.M., the bucket of Redford’s backhoe struck a small natural gas pipeline. After examining the pipe and finding no indication of a break or leak, he concluded that the line was not in use and left the site. Shortly before 2:00 A.M. on the following day, an explosion and fire occurred in the building serviced…arrow_forwardCase 2 There is a FOB contract under which the buyer has applied to the insurance company for warehouse to warehouse clause against all risks. When the goods were transported from the seller's warehouse to the loading dock, the risk loss within the coverage occurred. Afterwards, the seller requested the insurance company to make compensation with the “warehouse to warehouse clause” contained in the policy, but it was rejected. Later, the seller asked the buyer to claim compensation from the insurance company in the name of the buyer, but it was also rejected. Question：Why did the insurance company refuse to compensate the seller and the buyer? Full explanationarrow_forwardNational-Southwire Aluminum Company (NSA) owns and operates a plant that emits fluoride. When its wet scrubbers were turned off as part of its regular maintenance program, NSA discovered no appreciable change in ambient fluoride levels. Because of the expense of operating the scrubbers and its belief that using the scrubbers did not significantly affect ambient fluoride levels, NSA desired to turn the scrubbers off permanently. Accordingly, NSA sought a determination from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that turning off the scrubbers would not constitute a modification requiring the application of new source performance standards to the plant. Turning off the scrubbers would result in an increase of more than 1,100 tons per year of fluoride emissions with no decrease in the emission of any other pollutant. This increase was nearly four hundred times the level the EPA had established as inconsequential. The EPA determined that turning off the scrubbers would constitute a “new…arrow_forward
- John 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_forwardJohn Brown Ales Pty Ltd sells bottled beer to select licensed premises. Mary is out with friends and consumes a bottle of John Brown’s Old-Fashioned Ale. When she gets to the bottom of the bottle, she realises that there are the remains of an insect in the bottle. Mary suffered shock and became very ill with gastroenteritis. Mary missed two days of work and needed medical attention. Can John Brown be brought to account for Mary’s costs and suffering?arrow_forwardWrite a letter of complaint to the Castle Bruce Secondary, a secondary school in Dominica, addressing the issue of Safety and security of management, staff and students of the school as a result of the inadequate fencing of the facility and security guards.arrow_forward
- 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.arrow_forwardMildred and Richard Loving purchased a home in Inkster. At the time, there was a gravel pit across the street. Five years later, Wayne County converted the pit to a landfill. Under the county’s operation, the landfill accepted major appliances, household garbage, spilled grain, grass clippings, straw, manure, animal carcasses, containers with hazardous content warnings, leaking car batteries, and waste oil, among other things. The deposits were often left uncovered, attracting insects and other scavengers and contaminating the groundwater. Fires broke out, including at least one started by an intruder who entered the property through an unlocked gate. The Lovings complained but no changes were made. They then sued Wayne County and the State of Michigan, alleging violations of federal environmental laws. Those laws were designed to minimize the risks of injuries from fires, scavengers, groundwater contamination, and other pollution dangers. Did the Lovings have standing to sue? a.…arrow_forwardWhen a licensee has violated the License Law, the Real Estate Commission may do all of the following EXCEPT: bring an action in district court fine the licensee $10,000 for each violation bring an action in the county where the transaction took place choose to not report the violation for criminal prosecutionarrow_forward
- Martha invites John to come to lunch. Though she knows that her private road is dangerous to travel, having been heavily eroded by recent rains, Martha doesn’t warn John of the condition, reasonably believing that he will notice the deep ruts and exercise sufficient care. While John is driving over, his attention is diverted from the road by the screaming of his child, who has been stung by a bee. He fails to notice the condition of the road, hits a rut, and skids into a tree. If John is not contributorily negligent, is Martha liable to John?arrow_forwardAn altercation took place between a mother and a teacher at XY Nurserary located at 3Poinsietta Avenue, Old Harbour, St. Catherine. The incident lead to both the parent and teacherbeing locked-up for the night after a short bloody exchange. Additionally, the Early Childhood Commission got involved after receiving a complaint. Later on in the week, ti was found that many parents were concerned about the issue and became hesitant to have their children return to the institution.Task:•• Develop a memorandum to be sent out to parents reassuring them that the institution remains a safe place for their children.arrow_forwardJohn’s neighbour, Cynthia, has begun raising pigs in her backyard. John is no longer able to enjoy sitting in his hot tub on his back deck as a result of the smell. If John wanted to sue Cynthia, which cause of action would he use as his grounds? Select one: a. Nuisance b. Negligence c. Strict Liability d. Trespassarrow_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