Mock Law Discussion: (I am the Plaintiff for this discussion)
Wacky Motors Inc., a new and used car dealership, hired Steve Simpson to perform various duties, such as cleaning and gassing vehicles, moving vehicles from one lot to another and maintaining the showroom and vehicle lots. In this position, Steve had access to keys to the vehicle through an “ignition kiosk access process.” Under this process, a designated attendant, Cat Talley, keeps the keys in a restricted kiosk. When any employee wants to move a company vehicle, s/he must fill out a key “tag” or request form, which contains spaces for the date, time, stock number of vehicle, name of employee checking out the vehicle, and the destination of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle might be taken to a body shop for repairs or to a gas station, or to a company lot at a different location. Every time an employee checks out a vehicle, the reason must be for company business use. It was not necessary to put the expected return time on the tag, but if a vehicle was expected to be gone for a long time, this information was supposed to be put on the tag. Sometimes Cat fills the tag out for the employee. When the tag is completed, Cat adds the information from the tag to key control log, gives the keys to the employee who has requested them, and hangs the tag on the board in the control shack. When the vehicle is returned Cat crosses out the entry for the vehicle in the control log, replaces the keys, and removes the tag from the board. Sometimes vehicles are gone for more than one day, but a new page of the control entry is started each day. Some vehicles may be removed permanently if they are sold from another lot. In these cases, the managers of the other lots call to let Cat know that the vehicle will not be coming back. Sometimes employees would drive cars back and leave the keys with other employees. This practice was acceptable to the dealership.
One day Steve asked Cat if he could use a car for 30 minutes on his lunch break to go to his mother’s house. Cat told him it was okay as long as he brought it back because, otherwise, she could get in trouble. Steve took the car and left. On his way back to the dealership, Steve rear-ended a car stopped at a stop light, causing injuries to the driver and a passenger. Steve told a police officer at the scene of the accident that he was on a lunch break from his job and that he had permission to drive the car, but his boss was not aware he had the car.
The plaintiffs, driver and passenger, sued the car dealership on the grounds that it was responsible for the injuries caused by Steve.
If you are the Plaintiffs’ attorney or Defendant’s attorney, please post a well-reasoned argumentative analysis to support your client’s position, taking into account tort, agency, employment, and any other law that may be applicable. Use the law as set forth in your textbook to analyze these issues. Please clearly identify which party you are representing in your post. Post your argument by 11:59pm EST on Friday.
Board of Directors Role Playing Discussion: ( I am the CEO for this discussion)
For this discussion, every student will be emailed a role to play on the board of directors. Read the attached case, “The Panalba Decision.” As a member of the board, you must help to reach a decision at today’s meeting (in this discussion). The Chairperson of the Board, Dr. UpJohn, has provided the case background information to each board member. Your task is to select one of the five alternatives from the “Panalba Decision” for:
(1) The U.S. market; and
(2) assuming the FDA does ultimately ban Panalba in the U.S., the foreign market (which will not be affected by the ban).
You will be assigned a role on UpJohn’s Board. Read your role and act as if you were actually in that role. The roles all differ, so do not directly discuss your role with other board members until you post your discussion when you can then identify who you are. Based on your role, write a 400-500 word argument for the alternative you will choose for (1) the U.S. market, and (2) the foreign market (you can choose the same or different alternatives for (1) and (2)).
MY ROLE for response below
- Inside Director: Chief Executive Officer – as the CEO of Upjohn Corporation, you are most concerned with profits. You do not believe any product made and tested by your company could be harmful, and do not want the company’s reputation harmed by Panalba. Complicating things, you also own thousands of stock options which you can only profit from if the company’s stock continues to rise.
*The Panelba Decision for this response is attached”