{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Business & Ethics & Law A-1

Business & Ethics & Law A-1 - Case Problems Online...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case Problems & Online Research 1 Running head: CASE PROBLEMS & ONLINE RESEARCH Case Problems and Online Research Shranda Y. Caldwell BUS 340-Ethical and Legal Issues in Business Professor Mestman June 04, 2010
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case Problems & Online Research 2 Pringle v. Valdez Facts Debbie Jo Pringle gave Mark Valdez a ride home from a bar with a group of friends. Mark Valdez was riding in the front passenger seat, was not wearing a seatbelt, and was thrown into the windshield when Pringle drove into a concrete barrier. Valdez had to have major surgeries for the injuries he sustained, which caused permanent nerve damage and scars. Valdez sued Pringle on the basis of negligence. History Valdez requested damages for impairment and disfigurement, and noneconomic losses including inconvenience, emotional stress, and impairment of quality of life at the beginning of the trial. Valdez, at first, requested damages for pain and suffering, but later dropped it because of section 42-4-237 (7) of the seatbelt defense provision. This section minimizes the threat of someone suing a person if they were not wearing a seatbelt at the time of an accident. Issue Valdez openly admitted that he was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident. Holding Pringle argued that the jury should have been informed of this early on in the trail.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}