Case Why Matison Went After Johnston V.

1. The employer is protected for their reference as long as they meet two criteria. The first is that all the facts of the case must be factual. The judge in this case cited nothing that would indicate that the defendant was not being honest about the incident. They had a policy that drivers would be terminated for any accident that involved one of their drivers rear-ending another driver, and that is exactly what happened. The second is that the defendant did not act with malice. The judge concluded that there was no evidence the defendant had acted with malice in this case.
2. My personal opinion is that it should remain on the driver’s record, but that he should have a chance to explain his side of the story to any potential employers. …show more content…
I believe Mattison went after Johnston because they felt they could prove the three items they needed to prove to be able to collect damages. First of all they felt that Johnston had specific knowledge of the contract, and the court agreed. Second, they felt that Johnston interfered with the contract, and once again the court agreed. The third item was they felt Johnston had caused their beauty salon to have financial loss, and the court agreed once again. If I was running a business and ran into this situation, I would want to send a clear message to my competitors that they needed to leave my employees alone. In addition, Mattison probably realized that collecting damages from Drowne was probably not going to …show more content…
I believe the court would have to look at foreseeability to figure out where CI’s liability would be cut off. In my opinion, I do not believe that CI should assume all of the liability. The system being installed incorrectly definitely set up a possibility that damages could occur at some point in time. In addition, the OC worker smoking and leaving a lit cigarette in the wrong place also set up a possibility for damages to occur. I do believe that CI would assume a higher percentage of the liability, because if they had installed the system correctly the heavy damages would not have occurred. There would have still been damages, but they would have been contained to a much smaller area.
4. CI and CO might be able to argue that BTF should have security in the facilities at all times. If there had been security in the building, there would have been a good possibility that the fire would have been discovered in the early stages, and extinguished before major damages occurred. In my opinion, this would be a pretty weak case, and I do not believe it would get anywhere with the