Kuehn V. Pub Zone Summary

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

allowing a well-known dangerous element into the business and thereby endangering customers in the process. The case was ruled in favor of Kuehn, and rightly so, as the Pub Zone knew of the possible threat to its customers and did not act responsibly.
The case of Soldano v.

O’Daniels also involves an attack and a barkeeper, yet in this case the barkeeper is not responsible for the safety of the plaintiff. Mr. Soldano’s father was involved in a fight at Happy Jack’s Saloon, when a good Samaritan ran across the street to use the phone at the Circle Inn to report the altercation to police, the barkeeper would not allow the use of his phone. The fight escalated and Mr. Soldano’s father was shot, as the owner of the Circle Inn, O’Daniels was held responsible for the death by Mr. Soldano, as the phone call may have saved his life. O’Daniels is absolved of responsibility in this case since the Circle Inn was in no way responsible for creating the dangerous environment leading to the death of Soldano’s father, unlike the Kuehn case, in which a known danger was allowed into the

establishment.

Chapter 2
Essay Question #2
When a fire destroyed the Malden Mills factory in Lawrence, Massachusetts and put the employment of 3,000 people, as well as the prosperity of the town in jeopardy, owner, Aaron Feuerstein, stepped forward and offered to keep the workers on the payroll while the factory was rebuilt. Though Aaron could have shut down the business and led a more than comfortable retirement at the time of the fire, his choice to pay his employees during the reconstruction stemmed from the fear of the impact that the addition of 3,000 newly unemployed would have on the town. Though the loans accrued during the rebuilding period eventually led to Malden Mills filing for bankruptcy, it could be argued that the decision to continue paying employees was the right decision from the stakeholder model. The choice to put the best interests of the employees of Malden Mills and the community that it operates in before the maximization of profits shows that Aaron Feuerstein had a focus on the stakeholder model and made the correct decision in accordance with that model. However, from the view of the shareholder, this would be the wrong decision, as the ultimate goal for the shareholders would be to maximize and walk away with as much profit as possible. The choice to continue paying employees during the rebuilding process went against the interests of the shareholders, as doing so cuts into the potential profit. So this decision can be viewed as both right and wrong, depending on the viewpoint.

Chapter 3
Essay Question # 5
While on a vacation in Atlanta, Georgia, Sarah purchases a painting from Raul at an art fair for $500. After returning home to Vermont, Sarah decides she is no longer satisfied with the painting and demands a refund from Raul. Raul, a resident of Georgia, refuses to agree to the refund and Sarah looks to pursue legal action through the Vermont court system. Unfortunately for Sarah, the Vermont courts do not have personal jurisdiction over Raul as he has never been to Vermont or ever sold a painting to another resident of Vermont. The long arm statute applies in this situation, as it would be unfair to require Raul to stand trial in Vermont, since he has had no meaningful interaction with the state whatsoever. Had Raul continuously traveled to Vermont in order to sell his paintings, or if a dissatisfied customer in Georgia was to file a suit, a proper argument could be established. A good example in which court jurisdiction would apply is in5 the case of International Shoe Company v. State of Washington. The shoe company refused to contribute to the state’s unemployment fund on the basis that, even though sales representatives did work in Washington, the company’s warehouse was based in Missouri. The case ruled in favor of Washington State as, “agents for the International Shoe Company were known to have operated continuously in Washington for many years, and the agents’ activities have generated a significant number of sales for the company” (Beatty, Samuelson, & Bredeson, 2013, p.38).

Chapter 4
Essay Question #5
On my second day of work at the Everhappy Corp., one of my supervisor’s made a comment about the political button that I chose to wear in support of my choice for governor in the upcoming election. My supervisor informed me that he needed me to, “Get that stupid thing out of this office or you’re history, chump!” I would be right in choosing to protest that his statement violated my constitutional rights, more specifically the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Unless otherwise stated and prohibited in the paper work when hired on at the company, to not allow an employee to wear a non-controversial button in support of a political candidate would be infringing on their right to express their personal views. The threat of termination if the warning is not adhered to would also be a violation of the employee’s right to free speech.