1.

Problem Set Questions

a. NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT LIABILITY

Question 1: What defense will Ragged Mountain probably assert?

As a defense will Ragged Mountain will probably assert on the New Hampshire state legislature that
prohibited a person who participates in the sport of skiing from suing a ski-area operator for injuries
caused by the risks inherent in skiing and also assert that Alaina is responsible for her own injuries based
on strict liability and assumption of risk

Question 2: The central question in this case is whether the state statute establishing that skiers
assume the risks inherent in the sport bars Alaina’s suit. What would your decision be on this issue?
Why?

Snow tubing as a sport of skiing has the same fundamental characteristics and risks as skiing and are
similar activities that occur in the same type of environment and hence state statute establishing that
skiers assume the risks inherent applies.

Question 3: Suppose that the court concludes that the statute applies only to skiing and does not
apply to snow tubing. Will Alaina’s lawsuit be successful? Explain.

It is likely Alaina’s lawsuit will be successful because snow tubing is treated as a different activity. The
court would likely find Ragged Mountain negligent since there were no employees present in the snow-
tube area to instruct Alaina on the proper use of a snow tube. Even if a risk is obvious, that does not
necessarily excuse Ragged Mountain from the duty to protect its customers from foreseeable harm

Question 4: Now suppose that the jury concludes that Alaina was partly at fault for the accident.
Under what theory might her damages be reduced in proportion to the degree to which her actions
contributed to the accident and her resulting injuries?

Under the theory of comparative negligence, courts consider the negligent or intentional actions of both
the plaintiff and the defendant when apportioning liability and damages and would hold Alaina
responsible for her part in the accident and resulting injuries.

b. INTERNATIONAL LAW IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY

Question 1. Should the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) preclude this lawsuit? Why or why
not?

No, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) should not preclude this lawsuit. A foreign state is not
immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts when the foreign state has engaged in commercial activity
within the United States or in commercial activity outside the United States that has a direct effect in the
United States. Because armed forces of Honduras contracted to purchase weapons from Robco over a
six-year period this would fall under the commercial activity exception to the FSIA. Therefore, the FSIA
would not bar this lawsuit.

Question 2. Does the act of state doctrine bar Robco from seeking to enforce the contract? Explain.

Yes, the act of state doctrine bar Robco from seeking to enforce the contract. The Act of State Doctrine
states that U.S. courts will avoid passing judgment on the validity of public acts committed by a

This study source was downloaded by 100000799242944 from CourseHero.com on 04-21-2022 23:19:05 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/96905457/Problem-Set-and-Discussion-Case-Week-2-docx/
 recognized foreign government within its own territory. In this case the Honduran government sought to
reduce the size of its military. This policy decision is a public act within its own territory, the U.S. judicial
branch will most likely be unwilling to intervene and cannot enforce the contract.

Question 3. Suppose that prior to this lawsuit, the new government of Honduras had enacted a law
making it illegal to purchase weapons from foreign arms dealers. What doctrine might lead a U.S.
court to dismiss Robco’s case in that situation?

US court would dismiss Robco’s case under the principle of comity which states that a U.S. court would
defer and give effect to foreign laws and judicial decrees that are consistent with U.S. law and public
policy.

Question 4. Now suppose that the U.S. court hears the case and awards damages to Robco, but the
government of Honduras has no assets in the United States that can be used to satisfy the judgment.
Under which doctrine might Robco be able to collect the damages by asking another nation’s court to
enforce the U.S. judgment?

The Principle of Comity would allow Robco to take the judgment issued by a U.S. court to any nation in
which the government of Honduras does have assets and ask that nation's court to enforce the
judgment. As long as the laws of the US and the third nation's laws are consistent, judgment should be
enforced.

c. EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Question 1. Would Lyle’s claim of racial discrimination be for intentional (disparate-treatment) or

unintentional (disparate-impact) discrimination? Explain.

In this scenario, Lyle’s claim for discrimination would be for intentional discrimination (disparate-
treatment) as Lyle is claiming that her termination was based on racial discrimination and she is a
member of a protected group of people.

Question 2. Can Lyle establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination? Why or why not?

Lyle to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, she must show all of the following:1. The
plaintiff is a member of a protected class. 2. The plaintiff applied and was qualified for the job in
question. 3. The plaintiff was rejected by the employer. 4. The employer continued to seek applicants for
the position or filled the position with a person not in a protected class.

Lyle will not able to satisfy all elements of the prima facie case. Although Lyle meets the prima facie
requirement of being a member of a protected class.

Question 3. Lyle was told when she was hired that typing speed was extremely important to her
position. At the time, she maintained that she could type eighty words per minute, so she was not
given a typing test. It later turned out that Lyle could type only fifty words per minute. What impact
might typing speed have on Lyle’s lawsuit?

I believe this evidence would negatively impact Ms. Lyle’s lawsuit as she falsified information during the
interview process to qualify for the job. In this case, it is much more likely that she was fired because she
could not type fast enough to keep up with the writer’s conversations during the meetings and not racial
discriminatory reasons.

This study source was downloaded by 100000799242944 from CourseHero.com on 04-21-2022 23:19:05 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/96905457/Problem-Set-and-Discussion-Case-Week-2-docx/
 Question 4. Lyle’s sexual-harassment claim is based on the hostile work environment created by the
writers’ sexually offensive conduct at meetings that she was required to attend. The writers, however,
argue that their behavior was essential to the “creative process” of writing Friends, a show that
routinely contains sexual innuendos and adult humor. Which defense discussed in the chapter might
Warner Brothers assert using this argument?

Warner Brothers assert using these arguments that they have taken reasonable care to prevent and
promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and Lyle have unreasonably failed to take advantage of
preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the Warner Brothers to avoid harm. Exchanging
explicit language and or engaging in creative exchange that includes sexual inferences is inherent to the
content development and are necessary for the creative process of the show.

d. CONDUCT RESEARCH OF THE FOLLOWING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE:

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013))

Question 1. Why might one disagree with the Court's Majority decision? Persuasively and rigorously
explain.

One might disagree with Court’s Majority decision that the Alien Tort Claims Act based on presumption
does not apply extraterritorially as it overrides the substantial policy reasons for the passing of the Alien
Tort Claims Act (ATCA) which explicitly allows even foreign citizens to bring civil suits in U.S. courts for
injuries caused by violations of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. Foreign plaintiffs have
increasingly used this act to bring actions against companies operating in other nations and cases mainly
involved in alleged environmental destruction or have involved human rights violations and oppressive
government regimes. In this case Kiobel of human rights violations occurring within sovereign territory
outside of the US where the United States doesn’t have immediate jurisdiction to recognize a cause of
action for violation of the law is against the policy reasoning and the conclusion is unsatisfactory.

2. Discussion Case: Boeing

Question 1. What category of ethical dilemma is involved here?

The category of ethical dilemma involved in this case is conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurred
when Ms Druyun while working for the Air Force and negotiating contracts with Boeing intentionally
reached an employment arrangement before she steps down her current role.

Question 2. What questions or models did Mr. Sears miss in choosing to recruit Ms. Druyun when he
did? What was he hoping would happen? What do you think of his asking Ms. Druyun to cover up
their meeting? What should the chairman of the board have done when he received the Mr. Sears'
email about the non-meeting?

Mr. Sears failed to address the legal and ethical questions in choosing to recruit Ms. Druyun. This
misconduct in the hiring procedure by Mr. Sears clearly violates conflict of interest business conduct of
Boeing.

He was hoping in return favors with respect to Boeing contracts and pricing.

This study source was downloaded by 100000799242944 from CourseHero.com on 04-21-2022 23:19:05 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/96905457/Problem-Set-and-Discussion-Case-Week-2-docx/
 He is accepting the fact that they both can get into trouble as this a lapse of business conduct and can
cause legal issues for them in the future if noticed.

The chairman of the board should have immediately reported potential conflict of interest to his
authority with email details as evidence to investigate.

Question 3. What were Ms. Druyun's motivations? What questions or models did she miss in making
her decision to meet with Mr. Sears?

Ms. Druyun's was interested in job opportunities after leaving government service. She has used Mr
Sears influence and help to place her daughter McKee and McKee's husband at Boeing.

She missed the legal implications meeting Mr Sears on a personal meeting even though she was involved
in business decisions directly involving Boeing and pursued her personal interests without any
consideration of her ethical obligations to her employer.

Question 4. Evaluate the conduct of Mr. Druyun's daughter, Heather.

McKee Heather acted unethically on behalf of her mother's personal interest and communicated the
intent that her mother would probably end up working for Lockheed following her retirement from her
government position but that her mother Druyun really wanted to work for Boeing.

This study source was downloaded by 100000799242944 from CourseHero.com on 04-21-2022 23:19:05 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/96905457/Problem-Set-and-Discussion-Case-Week-2-docx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)