aem220411 - AEM 220 Law and Business Dale Grossman Spring...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
AEM 220 Law and Business Dale Grossman Spring 2008 Attached are four fact patterns that will form the basis for part of our discussion of legal issues in business on Friday April 11. I don’t expect you to know much, if anything, about the legal doctrine that are relevant to these cases but I would like you to take the time to read the facts and the issue before the court in each case and think about the competing interests that must be balanced in each situation. What are the rights or interests of each party? Why are they in conflict? Who do you think is “right?” Who do you think will “win?” Why do you feel the way that you do? What, if anything, could the people involved in these disputes have done to avoid them?
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Case One: KM v. Publix (Florida 2005) Facts: When K.M. was seven years old, her mother was employed at a Publix supermarket in Broward County, Florida. She worked in the business office with store manager Moses. Moses scheduled the mother to work in the early mornings and late afternoons. This schedule required the mother to make child care arrangements for K.M. The mother arranged for another Publix employee, Robert Woodlard, to babysit. Woodlard and the mother had become friends through their Publix jobs and Woodlard agreed to care for K.M. at his home. This arrangement enabled the mother to work the required hours. Moses was aware that Woodlard was taking care of K.M. Because he had been contacted by the Department of Corrections, Moses also knew that Woodlard was on parole from a previous conviction for attempted sexual battery on a minor under 12. According to the complaint, based on that information, Moses knew or should have known that Woodlard was unfit to provide child care, but failed to warn the mother of that danger. Unaware of Woodlard's criminal background, the mother entrusted K.M. to him over a three- month period. During that time, Woodlard sexually abused K.M. on at least two occasions. The issue before the court is whether Publix, as the employer, has a duty to warn one employee about a second employee's criminal background, where the warning pertains to the employees' personal relationship outside of work.
Background image of page 2
Case Two: Voyeur Dorm, LLC v. City of Tampa (11 th Cir. 2001) Facts: Voyeur Dorm is a Florida company that maintains offices and conducts its business in Hillsborough County, Florida. Voyeur Dorm operates an internet based web site that provides a 24- hour-a-day internet transmission portraying the lives of the residents of 2312 West Farwell Drive, Tampa, Florida. Throughout its existence, Voyeur Dorm has employed 25 to 30 different women, most of whom entered into a contract that specifies, among other things, that they are "employees," on a "stage and filming location," with "no reasonable expectation of privacy," for "entertainment purposes." Subscribers to "voyeurdorm.com" pay a monthly subscription fee to watch the women and pay an added fee to "chat" with the women. From August 1998 to June 2000, Voyeur Dorm generated
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/16/2008 for the course AEM 2200 taught by Professor Perez,p.d. during the Spring '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 5

aem220411 - AEM 220 Law and Business Dale Grossman Spring...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online