81%(16)13 out of 16 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 5 - 8 out of 11 pages.
Answers to the questionsCritical ThinkingSome missing information that should have been taken into account is the manner in which Jonesaccepted these hazing activities. Was he made aware of the activities by word of mouth, or wasoffered a written statement of the activities in which he would be participating? Also, how was hepressured by his peers? Did fraternity members threaten him to continue the hazing, or was hepressured to continue simply because he saw that other members were continuing, as well? Thisinformation is important because the answers to these questions could affect the court's reasoningand conclusion.Ethical Decision MakingThe relevant stakeholders affected by this decision are Jones and his family. They are affected because the court's decision that KA was not negligent forces Jones and those close to him to assumeresponsibility for his participation in the hazing.9-5
Chapter 09 - Negligence and Strict LiabilityTEACHING SKILLS: GIVE STUDENTS QUESTIONS TO GUIDE THEIR READING Consider asking your students to readChapter Nine, while answering thequestions about West v. East TennesseePioneer Oil Co., 172 S.W.3d 545(2005).This exercise guides students’ reading. You are asking them to investigate as they read, and to apply what they read to a real fact situation.TEACHING IDEASConnecting to the CoreWhat managerial policies would have prevented injuries to West andRichardson? Hopefully, students will say that the employees should havecalled the police. Also, students should say that the employees shouldhave refrained from selling gas to someone obviously intoxicated. Asmanagers, they should anticipate their employees’ negligence and try toprevent it.Teaching BasicsThe questions listed after West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co. cover the basics.Advanced TeachingAsk students this question:At this point in the law class, you have seen the kinds of rules courts develop, so you know, generally, what rules courts develop look like. In creating your rule, rely on the material you read about negligence.Articulate your rule below:Explain how your rule reflects what you learned about negligence:Hint to the teacher: Here are some rules from the case:“Convenience store owed duty of care to persons on roadways not to sell gasoline to clearly intoxicated motorist and not to assist motorist in pumping gas; store had duty to act with reasonable care under all the circumstances, acts of selling gas and assisting motorist in pumping gas created foreseeable risk to people on roadways, and store had safer alternative of simply not selling gas to motorist.”“A convenience store employee owes a duty of reasonable care not toassist in providing gasoline to a person whom the employee knows (or reasonably ought to know) to be intoxicated and to be the driver of a motor vehicle.”9-6
Chapter 09 - Negligence and Strict LiabilityNegligence Practice QuestionWest v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co.