More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of cost benefit analysis
Pros and cons of cost benefit analysis
Pros and cons of cost benefit analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of cost benefit analysis
Lee Iacocca should NOT have been prosecuted criminally This case involves the explosive nature of the Ford Pinto's fuel tank when involved in a rear-end collision. The flawed fuel tank’s structural design, led to a lawsuit and later to over one hundred civil suits as well. Engaging the examination of many concerns, most of which focused on Ford’s use of their cost-benefit analysis, showing it was less expensive to pay the court costs of the claims expected, some $49.5 million, instead of fixing the issue on each car after production, at a cost of $137 million. Leading to public disputes as to the ethics encompassing its corporate judgment to follow the internal cost-benefit. The trial lasted some three months and the jury deliberated a total
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
Arnold & Porter chose to sue Pittston rather than the Buffalo Mining Company because the value of the corporation allowed for adequate compensation to the victims. Author and head lawyer for the plaintiffs, Gerald M. Stern, writes that the original goal was sue to sue for $21 million for the disaster to have a material effect on the cooperation (51). To avoid responsibility Pittston attempted to prove that the Buffalo Mining Company was an independent corporation with its own board of directors. The lawyers for the plaintiffs disproved this claim by arguing the Buffalo Mining Company never held formal meetings of the board of directors and was not independent of the parent company. During this case Pittston’s Oil division had applied to build an oil refinery in Maine. The ...
Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.9 million in punitive damages. A judge then reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The final out-of-court settlement was of approximately $500,000. For many, this case is frivolous (meaning that the plaintiff’s prospects of being successful were low or inexistent), but it really highlights the question of excessive punitive damages compared to the damage suffered and its causes.
It is our conclusion that there is today no factual justification for immunity in a case such as this, and that the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
Two of the most significant inmates rights cases in the past century are Sandin v. Conner and Whitley v. Albers.
Most Americans would claim a cop killer should be put to death which is what Scott D Cheever will face if he loses in the Supreme Court of the United States. Scott D Cheever and the state of Kansas argued before Supreme Court of the United States on October 16, 2013. The question posed before the court was when a criminal defendant affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, does the state violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant? The answer is no, the United States Supreme Court should reverse the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court because his fifth amendment’s rights were not violated.
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.
“…and on the charge that the prisoner did with others to conspire to destroy the lives of soldiers in the military service of the United States in violation of the laws and customs of war-Guilty” were the words that soared out of Wallace’s mouth at the end of the trial. It was then that Henry Wirz was found guilty. Why? Why was he found guilty? This decision was based on the emotional aspect of the witnesses, and not by the actual guilt. Not only my defense, but also the defense of Wirz’s attorney, Baker, the testimony of the defendant, Henry Wirz, shows that Wirz should not have been found guilty.
In conclusion, based upon my understanding of the social responsibilities and ethics of businesses, this is a clear example of businesses ignoring their responsibilities. By allowing their first tank to be placed in such a dangerous area, the business placed their employees in danger, completely ignoring the entire concepts of both job safety and employee well-being. It was their place to ensure that their employees would be safe, and they completely ignored
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
As per request of the first assignment of this course, I watched the movie “A Civil Action” starring John Travolta (Jan Schlichtmann), as a plaintiff’s lawyer and Robert Duvall (Jerome Facher) and Bruce Norris (William Cheeseman) as the defendant’s lawyers of W.R. Grace and J Riley Leather companies. The movie depicted the court case fought in the 1980’s among the previously mentioned companies and the residents of Woburn a little town located in Massachusetts. After watching the movie, an analysis using the ethical tools reflected in the chapter 1 of the course textbook will be used to portray the ethical issues of the movie.
As we go about our daily lives we interact with a variety of products and services, many of which are key parts into how we live. We trust the policies, procedures and laws that are in place within society to protect us is the event we are to incur harm. The issue of product liability has become increasingly prominent in the news and has left many individuals wondering how safe the products we use daily are. The issue of tort and product liability was no more aware than the case of Gladys Escola, Respondent, v. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Fresno. It highlighted how issues that are interpreted as isolated could become a bigger problems and lead to large litigation cases.
Ford had a solution to fix the problem in the Pinto car, but it was cheaper for Ford to pay off the lawsuits then to pay to recall all the cars and fix them. Ford choose to keep the cars out for sale. This endangerment is morally wrong and needed to have consequences more severe than to allow payouts. Although the results, Ford though the payoff of the lawsuit was smarter to save them money, but the ethical codes we not being kept by not being honest in making the right
It seems obvious that large corporations have a tendency to ignore the negative effects of their actions in favor of profit. This example, although sensationalized, still says to me that with power comes responsibility. It affirmed my belief that a corporation’s goal cannot be just to provide profit to shareholders, but there must also be an element of social responsibility.