Business Law Case Analysis Essay

734 Words Aug 31st, 2013 3 Pages

SUMMARY: A new state law mandates that all employers must prohibit smoking on employer premises, and is responsible to enforce this law whether it be an employee, customer or client smoking the employer is always required to enforce the law that no one can smoke there.

ANALYSIS/ PERSONAL COMMENTARY: This is substantive law as it is defining the liability that the employer has to keep employees/clients/customers from smoking on the premises of their place of business. And I think the fact that the employer will get a court order requiring them to enforce the law is a smart step to ensure that the law will be followed more strictly.

Responded to: one, two, THREE WOOO


SUMMARY: After discovery in a court
…show more content…
There is also the Fifth Amendment which is a constitutional protection amendment against self-incrimination that also guarantees due process. This allows Sally the right to refuse to answer any questions about the allegations against the company if they might incriminate her. Another law is that the gov’t has no right to come in and seize/look for anything without a warrant about the case, and also there is attorney/client privilege allowing thing to remain confidential between company employees and the lawyers of the company and not be required to share any info that was said under said confidence.



SUMMARY: John was driving recklessly, and Ramona was walking recklessly across a crosswalk and John hit Ramona with his car injuring her. In trial he was found 80% at fault and her 20% at fault with the injuries costing $100,000. How much, if any, recovery would Ramona receive in a state that applies the contributory negligence rule? And, how much, if any, would Ramona receive in recovery in a state that applies the comparative negligence law.

ANALYSIS: In a state that applies the contributory negligence rule, Ramona would receive nothing. This is because under

Related Documents