Case Overview Ch 1-7
From Evernote: | Midterm Cases |
Chapter 1:
Davis v. Baugh Indus. Contractors, Inc.
Trial Court dismissed the suit saying it was property owner's fault. Issue: An employee of the property owner was killed when a concrete wall collapsed. Should the risk of liability stay only on the property owner, or extend to a contractor?
Rule: For the past forty years it has been the rule that liability belongs only to the property owner (and not a contractor, even if the contractor was negligent). However, thirty-seven states have rejected that rule and a contractor is liable for injury or damage as a result of negligent work, when it was reasonably
foreseeable that a third person would be injured due to that negligence. non expert landowner is incapable of recognizing issues
Application: We abandon the ancient completion and acceptance doctrine.
Conclusion: The order of the trial court ruling in favor of the contractor is reversed. Further proceedings
LAMSON v. CRATER LAKE MOTORS
Jury held for Lamson, company appealed saying lamson had no cause of action
Issue: Plaintiff contends he was fired for complaining about sales tactics that violated the company’s code of ethics. Was this wrongful termination?
Rule: At-will employment. Was the stated reason for termination pretextual? Was this termination a violation of public policy?
Application: Plaintiff’s internal complaints of unlawful sales practices are not of the same importance as health and safety violations (does not serve societal duty)…. There is no evidence the defendant intended to silence plaintiff in a manner that would conceal illegal activities.
Conclusion: Plaintiff was not discharge for fulfilling an important public duty.
The trial court
Chapter 1:
Davis v. Baugh Indus. Contractors, Inc.
Trial Court dismissed the suit saying it was property owner's fault. Issue: An employee of the property owner was killed when a concrete wall collapsed. Should the risk of liability stay only on the property owner, or extend to a contractor?
Rule: For the past forty years it has been the rule that liability belongs only to the property owner (and not a contractor, even if the contractor was negligent). However, thirty-seven states have rejected that rule and a contractor is liable for injury or damage as a result of negligent work, when it was reasonably
foreseeable that a third person would be injured due to that negligence. non expert landowner is incapable of recognizing issues
Application: We abandon the ancient completion and acceptance doctrine.
Conclusion: The order of the trial court ruling in favor of the contractor is reversed. Further proceedings
LAMSON v. CRATER LAKE MOTORS
Jury held for Lamson, company appealed saying lamson had no cause of action
Issue: Plaintiff contends he was fired for complaining about sales tactics that violated the company’s code of ethics. Was this wrongful termination?
Rule: At-will employment. Was the stated reason for termination pretextual? Was this termination a violation of public policy?
Application: Plaintiff’s internal complaints of unlawful sales practices are not of the same importance as health and safety violations (does not serve societal duty)…. There is no evidence the defendant intended to silence plaintiff in a manner that would conceal illegal activities.
Conclusion: Plaintiff was not discharge for fulfilling an important public duty.
The trial court