MGT-3031 business Law

Marge was suffering from pain in her left ankle and went to see Dr. Hippolytus for a consultation. Dr. Hippolytus decided that a muscle biopsy was the appropriate diagnostic measure to take to determine the cause of the pain. Dr. Hippolytus had Marge sign a consent form wherein she gave consent to the muscle biopsy. The consent form also had this clause in it:

“I consent to such further or alternate measures as may be found necessary during the course of the operation.”

During the muscle biopsy, Dr. Hippolytus noticed an unusual bone growth in the same area where the biopsy was done. He performed a bone biopsy as well as he was concerned that there might be a problem with the bone itself. Following the surgery, Marge was discharged with a pair of crutches. She was not told about the bone biopsy, nor was she told not to put weight on her left leg. Several days later, while using her crutches, Marge put weight on her left leg and her left ankle broke. It was determined that the ankle broke at the exact location of the bone biopsy. Marge went to a lawyer, Lionel Train, and decided to sue Dr. Hippolytus.

a) What arguments would Lionel Train make on behalf of Marge to establish the liability of Dr. Hippolytus? In answering this question, be sure to state the applicable cause(s) of action and why it (they) applies (apply) to these facts.

b) What arguments would Dr. Hippolytus’s lawyer make in an effort to avoid liability?

c) What is the likely outcome of this case and why?

d) Would the result be different if it were established that Marge had particularly brittle bones and that her ankle would not have broken had her bones been healthy?

The Springfield Nuclear Power Plant had its annual picnic for all of its employees at a local municipal park on Saturday. The SNPP supplied all of the food and beverages, including beer and wine. Springfield Police Chief Wiggum was hired by the SNPP to provide policing for the picnic in the event anyone got out of hand. Even though there were approximately 500 employees and family members in attendance, only Chief Wiggum was there providing police oversight as the Chief did not want to pay overtime for any of his officers to attend and assist. Employees Bob and Ted attended the picnic and drank far too much Duff beer. Both were visibly intoxicated. As they staggered to Bob’s car, Chief Wiggum’s attention was focused on the barbeque and therefore he did not notice them leave. Bob drove away from the picnic in his car, with Ted as his passenger. While driving, Bob failed to notice Pedro lawfully riding his scooter on the road and struck him, causing serious injury to Pedro. Pedro has hired you as his lawyer.

a) Does Pedro have a cause of action and if so, what is the cause of action?

b) Against whom and why? [Note: There may be more than one viable defendant]

c) Does the defendant (or defendants) have a defence and if so, what is it?

d) What is the likely outcome of this case and why?

e) Would your answer be different if all SNPP employees were required as a condition of their employment to attend the annual picnic?

Rod Flanders decided that he would embark upon the exciting business of being a backyard beekeeper in Calgary. He installed 10 hives in his backyard, each hive containing approximately 10,000 bees. His next door neighbour Homer has been quite concerned about Rod’s bees. Homer checked the Alberta Bee Act, certain that it would prohibit what Rod was doing. Unfortunately, s. 8 of the Act covers “problem bees” but they are defined as being bees that are diseased or have become Africanized, neither condition applying to Rod’s bees. Homer checked with the City of Calgary and learned that there are no city bylaws covering backyard beekeepers. Therefore, there is no legislation, either municipally or provincially, that addresses this issue.

Homer is quite concerned about the safety of his family when they are outside of their home, especially in their backyard as Rod’s bees have been going into Homer’s backyard and visiting his flowers. As a result, Homer and his family have found it necessary to stay out of their backyard for fear of being stung. No member of Homer’s family has actually been stung.

Homer has asked Rod to remove the beehives and Rod has refused, saying that they are legal for him to have in his yard.

Homer has come to you for advice. He wants to know if he has a civil cause of action against Rod.

a) Advise Homer as to whether he has a civil cause of action and if so, what cause of action. Be sure to include what remedies you would seek.

b) Does Rod have a defence to such an action, whether or not you think Homer should commence one?

c) What is the likely outcome of this case and why?

d) If it is established that Homer’s daughter Lisa had a deadly allergy to bees, would that impact the advice you give Homer and if so, how?

e) What if Lisa was stung by one of Rod’s bees, went into anaphylactic shock, and died? What legal advice would you give Homer?

Waylon Smith won a trip to Fort Myers, Florida as part of a fundraising lottery for the Springfield Isotopes, a local Triple A baseball team. The trip included attending a week-long all-expense paid baseball camp. It was agreed beforehand that Waylon would be interviewed by a local TV station upon his return to Springfield. The purpose of the interview was to generate public interest in the Isotopes. Waylon went on his trip and though some parts of the trip were good, others were not. When he was interviewed by the TV station upon his return, he made a number of comments, including the following:

a) The Isotope players are not very good and put in very little effort. They get paid far more than they are worth.

b) He was surprised that his United Airlines flight did not crash given that they are so accident prone.

c) The movie he saw while in Fort Myers, “Black Panther,” starring Chadwick Boseman, was excellent but had poor sound editing.

d) The baseball camp was run by Pete Rose who is a cheat and a criminal and should be locked up for gambling on baseball.

e) President Trump is a dimwitted, narcissistic creep.

f) Sideshow Vladmir, the man who interviewed him for the TV station, is a philandering, obnoxious drunk who should be run out of town on a rail.

After Waylon’s stellar interview, he thought he may have gone a little overboard, but he refused to retract any of his comments. He has just been served with a Statement of Claim alleging defamation by the Isotopes, United Airlines, the producers of Black Panther, Pete Rose, Donald Trump, and Sideshow Vladmir.

Please advise Waylon as to following:

a) Which plaintiffs have a strong case against Waylon and why?

b) Which plaintiffs have a weak or no case against Waylon and why?

c) How could he avoid such problems in the future?

d) What is the likely outcome of this case and why?

Note: Each of the foregoing six statements tests different legal principles regarding defamation. Analyze them carefully and apply relevant case law.

You are looking after your neighbour’s mail while he is away on a business trip. One day, a letter arrives from his financial advisor, Raymond James LLC. Being the nosey person that you are, you steam open the letter. Inside is a document addressed to “Dear Valued Client.” The document recommends investing in a cannabis company called “HighasaKite 2021.” You seal up the envelope so that your neighbour will not know that you had opened his mail. You then promptly invest $10,000 in HighasaKite 2021. Two days later, HighasaKite 2021 is suspended for insider trading, the stock price plummets and you lose almost all of your investment.

Can you successfully sue Raymond James LLC and if so, for what? Discuss.

Caution! Case 5 may be the shortest fact pattern, but it requires very specific case law analysis. Failure to select, discuss and apply the relevant case law may foretell a less than desirable grade.

Dale Grant was working part-time as a loss prevention officer for Best Buy. Dale’s full-time job is pest control but he was also doing some loss prevention work to save money for a new pest control van. The only training he was given by Best Buy was an informative video that he was required to watch entitled “How to Catch a Thief.” When he first started with Best Buy, Dale was required to take the video home, study it and report for an exam. In fact, Dale did not watch the video. When it came time for the exam, he showed his supervisor his “Bounty Hunter” hat which he received after taking a four-hour online course on being a bounty hunter. His supervisor was very impressed and said to Dale that it would be an insult to make a bona fide bounty hunter take such a test. The supervisor recorded a pass even though Dale never took the test.

Two months later, while working the evening shift at Best Buy, Dale saw a man that he thought looked suspicious. The man, Will Smith, was wearing a baggy trench coat and was wandering around the store looking at various items. It appeared to Dale that Will was drunk. Unknown to Dale, Will was not drunk. He had recently suffered a stroke and was recovering from that condition. Because of his stroke, he had lost some motor coordination and his speech was somewhat slurred. Dale incorrectly believed that he saw Will put a watch from a display case into his trench coat pocket. Dale followed Will around for a while and when Will left the store without paying for the watch, which Dale still believed was in Will’s pocket, Dale placed Will under arrest. He grabbed Will by the arm and told him “I am a Loss Prevention Officer – here is my badge [which he properly showed to Will]. You are under arrest for shoplifting, you will have to come with me.” Will protested his innocence but with his slurred speech, Dale thought Will was drunk. Will started to struggle and Dale put a chokehold on Will, something he had learned in his bounty hunter course. Will resisted and then fell limp to the ground. An ambulance was called and Will was rushed to the hospital. It was determined that the chokehold caused Will to have a second stroke which further incapacitated him, rendering him unable to speak and partially paralyzed. But for the chokehold, Will would not have developed these serious complications.

Will has come to you for advice. He wants to sue whoever he can sue and he wants to get as much money as possible as he will need permanent care for the rest of his life. Plus, he wants Dale and Best Buy to pay for what happened to him. Best Buy asserts that it has no liability as Dale was acting contrary to its express instructions to its loss prevention officers. The training video clearly states that no chokeholds were to be used on any suspected shoplifter due to the risk that such a technique could cause serious injury and even death.

Advise Will as follows:

a) Who are the proper defendants and why?

b) What cause(s) of action should be alleged for each defendant and why?

c) What viable defence(s), if any, does each defendant have for each cause of action alleged?

d) If Dale has virtually no assets, it is still worth suing him? Why or why not?