Question

For this week's Case Questions, you must answer four synthesizing questions regarding intentional and business torts as well as negligence, strict, and product liabilities. See the Assignment Expectations page for more detail. Gryphon Consultancy is a computer-consulting firm. It spends considerable time and effort recruiting the best personnel from the United States’ leading technical schools. Gryphon employees sign an initial three-year employment commitment. Dwayne worked for Gryphon, but then he quit and formed a competing company, which he called Syntel. His new company contacted Gryphon employees by phone, offering more money to come work for Syntel. At least 16 Gryphon employees left their work without completing their contractual obligations and went to work for Syntel. Gryphon sued. What did it claim, and what should be the result? You have most likely heard of the Liebeck v. McDonald’s case. Liebeck spilled hot McDonald’s coffee in her lap, suffering third degree burns. At trial, evidence showed that her cup of coffee was brewed at 190 degrees, and that, more typically, a restaurant’s “hot coffee” is in the range of 140–160 degrees. A jury awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge reduced the punitive award to $480,000, or three times the compensatory award. Comment on the case, and whether the result was reasonable. Self-driving cars are no longer science fiction. These vehicles are programmed to use lasers, sensors, software, and maps to drive themselves. A handful of states have passed laws allowing driverless technology on the road. But what happens when a driverless car harms someone? Who should be at fault? The passenger? The programmer? The manufacturer? Congress passed the Protection for Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which provides that gun manufacturers and retailers cannot be sued for injuries arising from the criminal misuse of a weapon. Critics argue that when gun makers market and sell military-style assault rifles to civilians, they should be held liable because these highly dangerous weapons are designed for specially trained soldiers, not the general public. Assume you own a gun store. What ethical considerations would apply to the sale of guns in your store? If Congress had not passed the pertinent statute, what legal theory might make a gun store owner liable for a customer’s misuse of a gun bought at the store?

Answer 1

1. GRYPHON - EMPLOYEES CASE :

* gryphon has hired all these 16 employees under a contract of employment where in they have to work under the said company for uninterrupted period of 3 years.

* Now that employees shifted to other company without fulfilling the commitment then they are definitely liable to the consequences as per the contract terms.

* If at all contact remains silent on this behalf , then in general

• employees will be demanded to pay monetary payment on behalf of work loss created to company on their behalf and not behaving on par with contract terms. ( breach of contract )

• In some companies the employees will be rejected to recieve experience certificate from their renouned institution.

* thus gryphon can sue on its employees for breach of contract and may recieve result in par with its contractual terms.

GRYPHON - SYNTEL :

* Here the former employee dwayne has worked under gryphon.

* After he quit his job he have contacted former institution employees.

* If the intention of syntel formation was proved that " the sole intention behind its formation was to take business of gryphon " , then the case will be included in the list of "INTENTIONAL TORT OF UNFAIR COMPETITION AGAINST ECONOMIC INTERESTS "

* then gryphon can sue on syntel and claim for its lost profits on this behalf.

* And so the result will be positive and syntel need to pay ample amount for gryphon on this behalf

* However , if dwayne has quit his job without completing full period of contract he would also be eligible to be punished along with other 16 employees of gryphon.

2. Liebeck Vs McDonalds Case :

* Lieback , a 79 years old woman was severely damaged with the hot coffee served by McDonalds and have observed third degree burns.

* the Jury has given final verdict in this matter as per COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE concept and declared Liebak negligence is 20% where as McDonald's negligence is 80%

* In a way i feel this is right. because ,

• as per liebak lawyer and jury's conducted trial , McDonald has served 20°F higher than other ones.

• Even if McD has served coffee at lesser heat , there would be minimum amount of skin damage if fallen directly on sensitive area of women ( pelvic region )

• McD however is definitely accountable to its negligence being one of the most renounced restaurants almost all over world.

3. Driverless car accidents :

* The accident of any type whether human driven car or self driven car , first point of suit starts on who was responsible for the accident.

* On observing obtained proofs , accusations and arguments , the court then decides which party is accountable.

* but if the self driven car has been proven to be the faulty ones , then question arises on who is responsible ??

* What technique / mode / feature has been responsible is found.

* then court decides whom to punish

• software designer - if its software fault

• Manufacturer - if its material used in manufacture fault

• designer / architect - if basic designing was found faulty.

however existing laws and courts are made as per human driven cars and thus its a bit tricky to decide and punish parties in case of self driven cars.  

* In that case , the self driven car related party will also be accountable to " INTENTIONAL BATTERY TORT FOR BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR UNAUTHORISED HARMFUL CONTACT WITH OTHER PERSON "

where in they will be held responsible for both physical and emotional pain to the sufferer.

* they will be ordered to pay for medical bills and also for emotional distress caused.

4. The act passed by congress on " Protection for Lawful commerce in Arms Act "

As per this act ,

* If a respective manufacturer have no idea on the criminal act being / about to take place by its reasonable consumer in this behalf and then it takes place.

the government as well as jury finds no reason to sue on manufacturer rather than person who committed the crime.

* However it only protects the manufacturers and dealers from unnecessary inclusions of them in suits but not in legitimate and reasonable ones.

* that means ,

• If it is found for a matter of fact that the manufacturer / dealer related people had every opportunity to know the intention of consumer and still shown " negligence" on this behalf , they should be definitely liable for relevant punishment.

* All other laws in relation to beach of contact etc like every other consumer goods applies to these manufacturers and dealers also.

* To the extent of ethical considerations to be considered by gun manufacturers on sale of a gun :

• Ethics always ask one to be on the good side and not try in harming others.

• Every product has two options to be used. whether for good or bad.

• thus still since the guns are harmful at higher extent to public than many other consumer products , the manufacturers should be alert on its sales.

• they should ensure the purpose of their product sale to respective customer.

• Ask them to fill up respective details. Also relevant authorities approval on this behalf.

• License to be provided only on specific capacity guns as per relevant use the consumer have opted for and not higher than that.

* If these minute and ethical considerations fulfilled on every single purchase of guns and also their capacitative manufacturers , then crimes can be reduced to greater extent and protection can be made sole purpose of handling guns in country.