In the case Bosse v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, from Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, outlines a court case between two teenagers Bosse and Griffin who were injured in a car crash after a Chili’s patron followed the teens out after they dodged their tab. This case primarily focuses on whether or not this patron, who remained unidentified after fleeing the scene once the teens crashed into a brick wall, was an agent of Chili’s restaurant. The article noted that the man who chased after the teens, in no way identified with the restaurant: “The patron’s car was unmarked; it bore no Chili’s insignia. He wore civilian clothing and no uniform or other insignia of employment at Chili’s.” The only interaction other than the chase he had with the …show more content…
teens was when they were stopped at a Best Buy parking lot and he yelled out something according to witnessing the teens skip out on paying the bill. The teens attempted to sue Chili’s for the car accident cause by this patron, claiming he was an agent of restaurant. According to the case, the plaintiff had the burden of establishing the patron acted as an agent.
The court ruled that in order for the parton to be acting with agency: “First Chili’s must have consented to the action of the patron in its behalf.... Second, Chili’s must have retained control, or the right of control, over the physical conduct of the patron in the performance of the pursuit… Third, the conduct of the agent must serve the benefit or further the interest of the principal.” The first burden lays the foundation on whether or not Chili’s agrees to the actions of the patron. Since Chili’s never established a partnership with the patron and only took the information about the car chase, from the patron, to inform authorities, they never consented to the person being an agent. An argument could be made that the teens believed that this patron was an implied agent since he was working in the benefit of Chili’s but seeing that this person yields no connection to the restaurant other than his frequent visits, there is not enough evidence to reason he was an implied agency. The most likely agency that could have been established is through apparent agency. Chili’s could have said the patron was their agent, during the car pursuit. Seeing that they did not want this car chase to begin with, it would never
happen. Since the plaintiffs could not establish agency between the patron and Chili’s the court ruled that Chili’s did not have any responsibility for this incident. I agree with the courts because the patron acted with his own volition, without communication with Chili’s of whether or not he should be acting on this for the betterment of the restaurant. Without this consent and Chili’s believing they would benefit I believe they should for no reason be responsible. I is already unethical that the teens that stole from Chili’s believe that they could squeeze more out of the company they were just fleeing. If the teen wanted a better chance, giving that the patron could be found they should sue the patron as a tort. They were put in danger by an unknown person chasing them with a deadly weapon. I believed the outcome would be more in their favor but it seems like they got what they deserved for committing a crime in the first place.
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
Though the Kuehn v. Pub Zone and Soldano v. O’Daniels cases both involve attacks in a bar, one case rules in favor of the injured plaintiff and the other in favor of the owner-defendant. These rulings may initially seem contradictory, however, once the stories and the environments surrounding the attacks become clear, it becomes more obvious that one of the establishments holds more of a responsibility when it comes to the safety of their patrons. In the case of Kuehn v. Pub Zone, customer, Karl Kuehn, was assaulted in the bathroom of an establishment known to be frequented by a violent biker gang. The biker gang and its violent outbursts had become such a regular occurrence that a sign was even posted prohibiting entrance to the bar while wearing gang colors. On the day of Mr. Kuehn’s assault, members of the biker gang, wearing their gang colors, pushed passed the bouncer and entered the Pub Zone. Instead of calling the police or refusing service, the bartender decided to serve the group a drink, not only failing to enforce the Pub Zone’s own established rule, but also acting against it. This places the Pub Zone at fault for
The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises. The contract between the Alvarez Companies and Laduzinski carried the certain elements of a basic contract since there was an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. Perez offered plaintiff a position with the Alvarez companies, adding that the company was interested in obtaining plaintiff's contacts to have Before Laduzinski accepted the offer, asked for a two-year contract; However, Perez told plaintiff that his position would be focused on managing the Alvarez companies' workload, since the Alvarez companies has "a lot of clients and were busy. " Laduzinski accepted defendants' offer of at-will employment and quit his job at J.P. Morgan.
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
According to the court case on Pam Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., I am in agreement with the fact that the “district court granted summary judgment in favor of Huber” (Morgan, p.413) and that Wal-Mart gave Pam Huber, a maintenance associated job due to her disability. In doing so, I am also in agreement with the fact that Wal-Mart did not breach the American with Disability Act of 1990 due to the fact that Wal-Mart specifically stated what was required of Pam Huber to do on the job. Due to that, I am in agreement with Wal-Mart’s decision to hire a capable candidate in replace of Pam Huber due to their policy.
Friganim Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. Facts: Friganim Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered into. In the first of the two contracts, Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. (smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract than the first agreement)
Had they been able to do so, Chili’s, the principal in the agency relationship, would have been responsible for the tortious conduct of the patron, the agent. (Cheeseman, p.503) The tort remedies that would have been recoverable from Chili’s might have included “medical expenses; lost wages; pain and suffering; emotional distress; and, in some cases, punitive damages.” (Cheeseman, p.503)
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerning the qualified privilege of employers. In this case, Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift, the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination, Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,” (Melvin, 2015, p. 265), causing Belanger to sue the company.
Ehrenreich didn’t want to be a waitress any more than some waitresses, but she did it for her research. Ehrenreich once stated that, “Waitres sing is also something I’d like to avoid, because I remember it leaving me bone-tired when I was eighteen.” (13). Her first job was at Hearthside, a restaurant in Key West, Florida. She was hired as a waitress, starting at $2.43 plus tips. She worked the afternoon shift. Hearthside was being managed by a West Indian man by name of Phillip. The management wasn’t the best. They treated their employees disrespectfully. At an employee meeting, they were threatened by the management. Ehrenreich stated, “I have not been treated this way-lined up in the corridor, threatened with locker searches, peppered with carelessly aimed accusation-since junior high school” (24). When they were just standing around, the manager would give them extra work to do. According to Ehrenreich, “You start dragging out each little chore because if the manager on duty catches you in an idle moment, he will give you something far nastier to do. So I wipe, I clean, consolidate catsups bottles and recheck the cheesecake supply, even tour the tables to make sure the customer evaluation is standing perkily.” (22). They were hired at Hearthside to serve the customers. There are twenty-six tables in the whole restaurant. All the food must be placed on the food trays; small items were to be carried in a bowl, and no refills on the lemonade (1...
People slave for a number of hours of work and find themselves with minimum wage salaries and working with people they don’t want to be around with. In her article Serving in Florida, Barbara Ehrenreich goes undercover as a low-wage worker for various jobs to expose the working conditions of working class Americans. Throughout her essay, she discusses how the employees are fearful of losing their jobs even though they are forced to work in inhumane conditions such as long hours, with no breaks between shifts. While undercover, Ehrenreich attempts to make an argument on how the upper and middle class can find it difficult to survive under minimum wage jobs and allow readers to figure out what can be done to change the restaurant business.
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
). Black alleges four instances of offensive conduct by a supervisor. The time period in which this conduct occurred is unknown from the facts presented. However, Black alleged that shortly after she became an employee the comment about her tight jeans from John to Joan was made. Three additional instances could be seen as frequent if a time frame of employment was known; however, a low frequency can still be relevant if the discriminatory conduct is severe, as would be a high frequency with low severity. For example, in Harris v. Forklift, the actions of Hardy, Harris’ supervisor, were determined to be frequent, but not severe as he “often insulted her… and made her the target of unwanted sexual innuendos.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.
Kincheloe, Joe. The sign of the burger: McDonald's and the culture of power. Philadelphia: Temple Univ Press, 2002. 9-185. Print.
Even though the principal does not authorize, ratify, participate in, or know of the misconduct, he/she may be held for an agent’s tort committed in the course and scope of the agent’s employment. As noted in Case Study 1, an agent is to comply with all lawful instructions received from the principal and persons designated by the principal concerning agent’s actions on behalf of the principal. A principal who is under a duty to provide protection is subject to liability to such others for harm caused to them by the failure of such agent to perform the duty. A principal is not relieved from the separable part of a contract which he/she authorized the agent to make by the fact that the agent under took. Even where the agent’s unauthorized act constitutes a fraud on both the principal and the third person, the partial validity rule is applicable.