Case Briefs.Week 9

Case Briefs.Week 9 - Kelly Bowers 103679426 Case Briefs...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Kelly Bowers 103679426 Case Briefs Week 9 F ACTS : Garden City Boxing Club (∏) of San Jose, CA owned the exclusive rights to broadcast several prize fights including the September 2002 match between DeLaHoya and Vargas. ∏ sold the right to receive broadcasts to bars and other commercial venues. The fee was $20 multiplied by the maximum fire code occupancy of a given establishment. In January of 2002 Antenas Enterprises in Chicago, IL installed a satellite television system at the address of 220 Hawthorn Commons in Vernon Hills on behalf of DISH Network. Luis Dominguez (∆) was the sole proprietor of Antenas. Despite the fact that the Antenas employee labeled this address as residential, it was in fact a restaurant called Mundelein Burrito. The restuarant used this television system to broadcast the DeLaHoya/Vargas fight and three others to their patrons yet only paid the residential fees. ∏ sued ∆ to collect their normal fee. I SSUE : Is ∆ personally liable for the damages caused by the violation of himself and the Antenas employee? Were those violations willful and for purposes of commercial advantage of private financial gain? R ULE OF L AW : Common Law, Section 605(a) of the Cable Communications Act A NALYSIS : If those violations were willful and for purposes of commercial advantage of private financial gain, the court may increase the damages from the initial fee to an amount not more than $100,000 and the prevailing party will be awarded attorney fees. ∏ argues that the ∆’s failure to properly list the restaurant resulted in a loss of the license fee which would have amounted $3,680 in this case. Instead the restaurant paid $184 to ∆ – of which ∏ saw none of. Plus, a sole proprietor is personally responsible for actions committed by his employees within the scope of their employment. C ONCLUSION : The court considered the willfulness of ∆’s conduct and the deterrent value of the sanction imposed and thus, awards ∏ twice the amount of damages and reasonable attorney fees. F ACTS : On June 11, 1999 Harvey Pierce shot his ex-girlfriend, Robin Kerl (∏), and her current fiancé, David Jones and then killed himself. ∏ was seriously injured and Jones was killed. The shooting took place which Pierce was supposed to be working at a local Arby’s which is operated by Dennis Rasmussen, Inc. (∆). Pierce left work without permission. ∏ sued ∆ for vicarious liability as they were negligent in their supervision of Pierce. The court granted a MSJ in ∆’s favor. ∏ appealed and the court affirmed. ∏ appealed to the state supreme court. I SSUE : Was there a master/servant relationship between Pierce and ∆ under the doctrine of respondeat superior? R
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/08/2011 for the course MGMT 1A taught by Professor Litt during the Spring '08 term at UCLA.

Page1 / 5

Case Briefs.Week 9 - Kelly Bowers 103679426 Case Briefs...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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