HRM 466 Case Law Assignment You are required to answer all questions. Please number your responses in the same manner I have numbered the questions. 1. What is the difference between a. and a. Read Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc* (attached) and answer the following questions: a. Summarize the facts of the case and what the Supreme Court of Wisconsin had to decide. Stanley K. Miller sued Wal-Mart for detainment and search by Wal-Mart employees, resulting in damages. The jury awarded Miller $50,000 in damages, after finding Wal-Mart negligent in their hiring, training, and supervising practices. The Supreme Court had to address two issues: whether Wisconsin recognizes negligent hiring, training, or supervision as a valid claim, and whether merchant …show more content…
As a result, they reversed the judgment and demanded further clarification. Regarding merchant immunity, the court ruled that while it applies to the negligent hiring claim, Wal-Mart did not meet the statutory requirements for immunity, resulting in civil and criminal liability.The court's decision reversed the first judgment and required further proceedings to address the unresolved issues in the case. b. What are the four elements of a cause of action for negligence in Wisconsin? Explain whether or not each element is present in this case. Duty of care on the part of the defendant: Yes, this refers to the legal obligation to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. It is foreseeable that if a less and less effective employee is not properly trained, they could cause harm to someone. As a result, Wal-Mart has a duty of care toward all its patrons, including …show more content…
Miller was established through the negligence of Wal-Mart in hiring, training, or supervising its employees. The jury found that Wal-Mart's failure in these areas led to the wrongful detainment of Miller by its employees. Specifically, the jury determined that Wal-Mart did not have reasonable cause to believe that Miller had shoplifted, which says that the actions of its employees were not justified. Actual loss or damage as a result of the injury: Yes, the harm suffered by Stanley K. Miller as a result of the actions of Wal-Mart employees. This harm included mental pain and suffering experienced by Miller as a result of being unlawfully detained, searched, and interrogated by Wal-Mart employees. 2. What is the difference between a'smart' and a'smart'? Read Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walmart Stores East LP and Walmart, Inc. (attached) and answer the following
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
...e terms and conditions the job entailed. I believe that Wal-Mart did accommodate Pam Huber’s disability needs by suggesting to her a different position to work in due to her downfall. If the company caused for her accident then they should accommodate for her disability and keep Pam Huber in her position but due to the fact that the accident happened on her own terms I do not think the company should be reliable for her disability and therefore Pam Huber should either accept and make the most out of her situation or leave the company. Based on all these factors I am defiantly in agreement with Wal-Mart and the district courts decision on ruling summery judgment in favor of Pam Huber.
A case that has been presented to the law that is similar to the Tucker vs. Walgreen Company class action suit is the EEOC vs. Walgreen Company. Although this case was presented as disability discrimination, it is still filed
The manager at that McDonald’s restaurant, the defendant, knew Matt had to drive a long way to and from work. Even though this information was known, the manager gave an opportunity to Matt to work a cleaning shift between his regular shifts. My thoughts are that the manager should not have given the opportunity to Matt on the first place as the manager knew Matt was already working from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm on April 4th, 1988 and 5:00 am to 8:21 am on April 5th, 1988 and had to drive 20 minutes to and from work. Adding a cleanup shift from 12:00 am to 5:00 am on April 5th, 1988 made Matt’s working hours excessively long. By the end of his shift, it is obvious that Matt is over worked and not in a condition to drive back. This lack of judgement from the manager eventually lead to the accident and death of Matt, and massive injury to Frederick M. Faverty, the plaintiff. Due to this lack of judgement, I think the verdict against McDonald’s to pay $400,000.00 to the plaintiff is
In his article “Progressive Wal-Mart. Really.” Sebastian Mallaby argues that Wal-Mart’s $50 billion in discounted gains is helping the well being of American shoppers. Malay concludes with “If critics prevent the firm from opening new branches, they will prevent ordinary families from sharing in those gains. Poor Americans will be chief among the casualties”(623). Mallaby is arguing if critics don't allow Wal-Mart to open new branches poor Americans won’t be able to share in gains like savings, jobs, and better local economy. Wal-Mart might have all these gains for the American shopper, but he doesn't talk about the negatives. For every gain there’s a loss. I disagree with Mallaby’s argument; Poor Americans, including Wal-Mart employees, are excluded from sharing in those gains because they work unpaid hours, and the inability to get health care coverage. Wal-Mart keeps these employees from sharing in these gains by keeping them in scared and in poverty. Ever since I started working at a market I then realized not only Wal-Mart excludes its employees and the poor from sharing in gains. The low paid employees at Wal-Mart will never share in gains as long as they work at Wal-Mart.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
In the case study 4.1 (Tardif v. Wiebe), we learned that vicarious liability does not always applied on employers for employee’s wrongdoings. In most cases, the decisions are made upon determining weather employee was acting in their own personal capacity and interest, or in the course of their employment.
In 2005 three Wal-Mart employees in Alameda County, California filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court claiming that Wal-Mart manipulated their time cards to cut their pay. The charges were that Wal-Mart had deleted thousands of hours of time worked from employees’ payroll records by erasing overtime hours. Jon Lehman, Wal-Mart store manager, talked about how their district manager explained to them how to cheat workers out of overtime. The Wal-Mart Corporation paid approximately 50 million dollars to settle an off-the-clock class action suit in Colorado, and in Texas, it is estimated that they cheated workers out of up to 150 million dollars in unpaid
...this case, Mr. Casias was able to prove that Wal-Mart violated the at-will law and fired him without understanding the legitimate reason for his drug use. For this reason, it has been made clear that federal and state laws take precedence over manmade laws that maybe judgmental.
Running a business isn't about dealing with employees’ issues but dealing with certain issues of employees helps in sustaining a business. Wal-Mart takes care of employee’s issues to become more sustainable. In 2008 Wal-Mart agreed to pay 640million to settle 63 lawsuits against him such as denying meal breaks and rest breaks
Walmart’s employee treatment can be seen of being rather controversial. There are countless sites regarding
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
Please discuss the following items in the order given. Briefly respond to all areas listed.
This case is talking about Wal-Mart stores were accused by six American female workers which is discriminating against its U.S. female workers. This case that happened at Wal-Mart is the largest case ever in American civil rights history. Judging by the 2010 Court of Appeals opinion, they were discovered two issues had alleged that women employed in Wal-Mart stores which is women was paid less than men in the similar positions .
2. Why do you think Wal-Mart has had a recent number of ethical issues that have been in the news almost constantly?