Negligence and Strict Liability

1. What defense will Ragged Mountain probably assert?

As a defense, Ragged Mountain will likely use the statue enacted by the New
Hampshire state legislature that protects ski operators from being sued by people
who sustain an injury while skiing. Though Alaina Sweeney was snow tubing and
not skiing, the action is similar enough that this statute still applies. Also, Sweeney
likely knew the risks of participating in such an activity and still chose to participate.
Therefore, it was an obvious risk and Ragged Mountain should not have needed to
provide a warning (132).

2. The central question in this case is whether the state statute establishing that skiers
assume the risks inherent in the sport bars Alaina’s suit. What would your decision be
on this issue? Why?

Snow tubing and skiing are similar enough activities that occur in the same type of
environment that I would apply the state statue to Sweeney’s suit.

3. Suppose the court concludes that the statute applies only to skiing and does not
apply to snow tubing. Will Alaina’s lawsuit be successful? Explain.

It is likely Sweeney’s lawsuit will be successful because the snow tubing operators
would not be afforded the same protection as ski operators. Therefore, the court
would likely find Ragged Mountain negligent since there were no employees present
supervise the snow tubing or to instruct participants on safety measures. The
textbook states, “In addition, even if a risk is obvious, that does not necessarily
excuse a business owner from the duty to protect its customers from foreseeable
harm” (132).

4. Now suppose the jury concludes that Alaina was partly at fault for the accident.
Under what theory might her damages be reduced in proportion to the degree to
which her actions contributed to the accident and her resulting injuries?

The court would use comparative negligence theory. “Under this standard, both the
plaintiff’s and the defendant’s negligence are computed, and the liability for
damages is distributed accordingly” (137).

International Law in a Global Economy

1. Should the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) preclude this lawsuit? Why or
why not?

No, FSIA should not preclude this lawsuit. The only exceptions to FSIA include the
following:
 If the foreign country has waived its immunity

This study source was downloaded by 100000799242944 from CourseHero.com on 04-21-2022 23:19:09 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/14554237/Problem-Set-and-Discussion-Case-week-2/
 
If the foreign country has engaged in commercial activity within the United
States or commercial activity that has a direct effect in the U.S.

If the foreign country has committed a tort in the U.S. (459).

Honduras’ contract has a direct effect on commercial activity in the U.S. through
Robco, therefore the lawsuit should not be precluded.

2. Does the act of state doctrine bar Robco from seeking to enforce the contract?
Explain.

Yes, because the act of state doctrine states the judicial branch of a country will not
examine the validity of acts another foreign government makes in its own territory
(458).

3. Suppose that prior to this lawsuit, the new government of Honduras had enacted a
law making it illegal to purchase weapons from foreign arms dealers. What doctrine
might lead a U.S. court to dismiss Robco’s case in that situation?

A U.S. court might use the principle of comity, which means one country will
recognize and enforce the rulings of another country as long as they are consistent
with the law and public policy of the accommodating country (456).

4. Now suppose that the U.S. court hears the case and awards damages to Robco, but
the government of Honduras has no assets in the United States that can be used to
satisfy the judgment. Under which doctrine might Robco be able to collect the damages
by asking another nation’s court to enforce the U.S. judgment?

Assuming the laws and public policy are similar between Honduras and the U.S.,
Robco would use the principle of comity (456).

Employment Discrimination
1. Would Lyle’s claim of racial discrimination be for intentional (disparate-treatment)
or unintentional (disparate-impact) discrimination? Explain.

It would be for unintentional (disparate-treatment) discrimination because she was

fired for not being able to type fast enough to keep up in the meetings. In this case,
that demonstrates how she was adversely affected by the employer’s practices.

2. Can Lyle establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination? Why or why not?

It is unlikely Lyle could establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because
she doesn’t meet the four requirements. To have a prima facie case, Lyle must:

This study source was downloaded by 100000799242944 from CourseHero.com on 04-21-2022 23:19:09 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/14554237/Problem-Set-and-Discussion-Case-week-2/
  Be a member of a protected class
 Have applied and been qualified for the job in question
 Be rejected by the employer
The employer must also have continued to search for other applicants or have hired
another candidate who is not in a protected class (682).

3. Lyle was told when she was hired that typing speed was extremely important to her
position. At the time, she maintained she could type eighty words per minute, so she
was not given a typing test. It later turned out that Lyle could type only fifty words per
minute. What impact might typing speed have on Lyle’s lawsuit?

This would negatively impact her case, because Lyle knowingly deceived her
employer. Because she was not able to meet the eighty words per minute
requirement, Lyle is technically not qualified for the position. This automatically
makes her ineligible for a prima facie case.

4. Lyle’s sexual-harassment claim is based on the hostile work environment created by

the writers’ sexually offensive conduct at meetings that she was required to attend.
The writers, however, argue that their behavior was essential to the “creative process”
of writing Friends, a show that routinely contains sexual innuendos and adult humor.
Which defense discussed in the chapter might Warner Brothers assert using this
argument?

Warner Brothers could use the business necessity defense since its writers argue the
“sexually offensive conduct” is necessary to their creative process in meetings (695).

Chapter 24
Per the Kiobel case, why might one disagree with the Court's Majority decision?
Persuasively and rigorously explain.

Yes, one might disagree with the Court’s Majority decision in this case because the
actions of the Nigerian government to violently suppress demonstrations are a
violation of basic human rights. International Tort Claims, used by the U.S. plaintiffs
in this case, are allowed under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) if actions by a
foreign entity violated the law of nations (which protect basic human rights) or a
U.S. treaty (465).

Discussion Case- Boeing

1. What category of ethical dilemma is involved here?

The ethical dilemma in this case is a conflict of interest. Druyun used her position
and influence with the U.S. Air Force to advance the careers of her daughter and son-
in-law at Boeing and eventually secure a position for herself at Boeing.

This study source was downloaded by 100000799242944 from CourseHero.com on 04-21-2022 23:19:09 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/14554237/Problem-Set-and-Discussion-Case-week-2/
 2. What questions or models did Mr. Sears miss in choosing to recruit Ms. Druyun when
he did? What was he hoping would happen? What do you think of his asking Ms.
Druyun to cover up their meeting? What should the chairman of the board have done
when he received the Mr. Sears' email about the non-meeting?

Mr. Sears failed to consider the ethics of hiring Druyun. When hiring any new
employee from a partnering company, it seems like it’d be common sense to screen
for any conflicts of interest ahead of time. He should have waited until Druyun was
no longer in charge of awarding contracts. Sears hoped Boeing would be awarded
more defense contracts and that Boeing could recruit Druyun, who had become a
force to be reckoned with in her field. Asking Druyun to cover up their meeting is a
blatant sign that Sears knew he was being unethical. The chairman of the board
should have saved the email, printed it for his records, and contacted the
appropriate authorities with the email as evidence.

3. What were Ms. Druyun's motivations? What questions or models did she miss in
making her decision to meet with Mr. Sears?

Her motivation was to secure a high-paying position for herself at Boeing upon
retirement from the U.S. Air Force. She also wanted to help advance the careers of
her daughter and son-in-law who both worked for Boeing. Before meeting with Mr.
Sears, Druyun should have asked herself if the meeting was ethical and if she was
putting her current employer’s needs before a potential future employer’s needs.
Being a competent professional, she should have considered the consequences of
being found guilty of a conflict of interest.

4. Evaluate the conduct of Mr. Druyun's daughter, Heather.

Heather directly benefited from her mother’s influence with the USAF and Boeing,
and later used her position with Boeing to connect her mother with Mr. Sears.
Heather should have considered the ethics of her actions and how it would affect her
and her company professionally. It’s understandable she wanted to repay her
mother, but this wasn’t the ethical way to do it.

This study source was downloaded by 100000799242944 from CourseHero.com on 04-21-2022 23:19:09 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/14554237/Problem-Set-and-Discussion-Case-week-2/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)