Legal Discussions on Negligence and Court Opinions

Discussion 1

Discuss questions:
Discussion 1:
Select one of the court opinions noted in the Week 7 Overview (do not choose Keller v Koca).  Do you agree with the court’s ruling?  Explain why or why not, citing specific facts, principles of law and/or ethical theories to support your contention.  What impact does this ruling have on the conduct of business?

Discussion 2:

Applying the applicable terminology and legal principles, identify the elements of a negligence claim.  Then, consider the question:  to whom does your company owe a duty?  A vast majority of courts say a duty is owed to a foreseeable plaintiff; a minority say a duty is owed to any person harmed.   Analyze the Court’s majority and dissenting opinions in Keller v. Koca, 111 P.3d 445, 2005 Colo. LEXIS 360 (Colo. April 18, 2005) and state your opinion – to whom should a duty be owed – and, citing specific ethical theories or the Regis/Jesuit values, justify it on ethical grounds.   (Week 7 FTE, Case Law You Need to Know)

The expert need to respond to the following discussions. 

Notes:
•    Whether you are asserting agreement or disagreement, provide clear and credible evidence to support your response.
•    Avoid using unsupported personal opinions, generalizations, or language that others might find offensive.
•    When in disagreement, keep responses respectful and academic in tone.
•    Ask open-ended questions, rather than questions that can be answered with yes or no. Those types of answers end the conversation, rather than pushing it forward.

Discussion 1 Response 1:

Case: Black v. William Insulation Co., 2006 WY 106

In this case the personal representative of the Black estate brought a suit against William Insulation.  Black alleged that due to the long hours required by the descendant’s employer, lengthy commute time and other factors, led Black to get in a fatal car accident on his way home from work.  The descendent alleges that William Insulation did not provide proper training or safeguards, leading to Black getting in this fatal accident.  The court ruled that William Insulation was not at fault and there were other factors at play, such as, Black working a second job and choosing to work at William Insulation knowing there was a long commute.  For these reasons, the court ruled that his employers did not owe him this specific duty.  The burden falls on the descendent to ensure he was safe and able to do his job. 
 
I agree with the court’s ruling.  While no doubt it is tragic to have any loss of life, the burden to keep himself safe was Black’s responsibility.  As individuals we have a personal responsibility to keep ourselves and others safe, this is our moral duty.  In this case Black made these choices on his own, not under pressure or force by his employer.  It sounds like Black was a hard worker, choosing to work two jobs, this, no doubt shows what a hard worker Black was.  However, it was his choice to do this.  His employer did not transfer his job or make him work multiple shifts, this was all his choice.  These are the reasons I support the ruling of the court.

Discussion 2

Discussion 1 Response 2:

Case: Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., 741 P.2d 1240

In 1978 Jaime Camacho and Kathleen Camacho purchased a Honda motorcycle. While driving it through an intersection, they were involved in a collision with a car and damaged their legs. They launched a case against the Honda motorcycle company because the motorcycle did not come with a leg protection device (crash bars) which would have helped prevent their legs from getting crushed in an accident.

Two mechanical engineers employed by the Camacho’s agreed that the inclusion of crash bars would have minimalized the damage to their legs.

Honda employed the Crashworthiness Doctrine. Under this doctrine, a motor vehicle manufacturer is only liable for injuries of users (drivers, passengers) where there was a defect in the design or manufacture. Although this was initially applied to cars, it had been used in cases involving motorcycles.

Honda argued that” Motorcycles are inherently dangerous motor vehicles that cannot be made perfectly crashworthy and, therefore, those motorcycle manufacturers should be free of liability for injuries not actually caused by a defect in the design or manufacture of the motorcycle.”

In outcome, initially, the trial court was in favor of Honda arguing that “the danger was obvious and foreseeable to the ordinary consumer.”

 However, “On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, holding that the "crashworthiness doctrine" required a motorcycle manufacturer to exercise reasonable care to minimize the injurious effects of a foreseeable collision by employing commonsense safety features.”

I am not a fan of motorcycles, but I do agree with Honda in this instance. The Camacho’s knew the risks of purchasing a motorcycle. The fault was Honda, they did not cause the accident. If the Camacho’s were purchasing a motorbike for safety reasons, they would have purchased one with the crash bars. The Warrant of Merchantability doctrine argues, they had purchased it to perform as a motorcycle. It performed well but it was not designed to withstand a crash.

There are only so many safety features that can be employed by a manufacturer but ultimately the user accepts the risk involved in a motorcycle or car.

In terms of conduct on business, it is evident that users may need an explicit explanation that using a product will not lead to the consequences you hope for. Just because you purchased something it does not mean that you will get the same results as others. I am sure there are thousands of other Honda motorbike users who are perfectly happy with their purchase because they were not involved in an accident.

Response 1: Black v. William Insulation Co.

I don't like to sound like a libertarian but as motorcyclists, they should have been aware of the risks involved and would have seen that it did not come with crash bars.

Until crash bars are mandated by the government like seat belts in cars, they should know the risks involved.

Discussion 2 Response 1:

To support a negligence claim, three elements must be present. First, it must be determined that the defendant had a legal duty to the plaintiff. Then, it must be proven that the defendant breached this duty to the plaintiff. Finally, this breach of duty must have caused proven harm to the plaintiff.
 
In the Keller v Koca case, the plaintiff, a 12-year-old girl who was raped in the back of dry cleaners sued the employer (Keller) of the man who raped her for negligent supervision. The dry cleaners were closed at the time of the attack. The employee brought the girl with him to the store and raped her. The majority opinion found that the employer was not liable for negligent supervision because the employer did not owe a duty to the girl. The employer had no duty to the girl because the harm to her was not foreseeable.

In other words, the employer had no way of knowing that the employee would bring a girl, who was not connected to the business, to the cleaners after hours and attack her. The court did not find evidence supporting a link between the employer’s knowledge of the risk of the employee and the harm that occurred. Further, the court argued that the employer had a duty to protect female and employees and female customers from harm, but the girl was not an employee or customer.
 
The dissenting opinion, on the other hand, argued that the majority employed too narrow of a view of Keller’s duty of care. The employer knew the risk the employee posed to young women and female employees. The court heard the testimony of several former female employees who outlined sexual abuse at the hands of the employee while at the cleaners. These women complained directly to Keller, so according to the dissent, he was fully aware of the danger this employee posed.

Additionally, the dissent takes an issue with the majority’s assertion that the employee brought the girl to the dry cleaners in violation of the employer’s rules. According to the dissenting opinion, the court did not find any evidence that any such rules existed. The dissenting opinion argues that the Restatement Second of Agency finds that negligent supervision is appropriate when the employer is negligent in “failing to prevent tortious conduct from occurring on the wok premises.” Keller knew of the risk the employee posed and did not put any safeguards in place to protect girls from him. Therefore, he was negligent.
 
I think the dissenting opinion made some solid points. The fact that Keller kept the employee around despite hearing from multiple female employees that he had been inappropriate with them is unconscionable. Plus, the issue of rules complicates things. Keller absolutely should have had concrete rules regarding what the employee could and could not do. If no evidence of the existence of such rules exists, the court should not state that rules were in place.

Response 2: Camacho v. Honda Motor Co.

That being said, I agree with the majority opinion, as much as the employer sucks. It is impossible for an employer to predict every single scenario that could play out in their business when they are not around. I think Keller knew that the employee was some kind of threat. However, he could not have known the risk the employee posed to this specific girl.

She had no connection to the store, and the employer had no possible way of imagining the employee would bring her to the store. Therefore, from a legal perspective, duty is only owed to a foreseeable plaintiff. Saying that a duty is owed to any person harmed sets unrealistic expectations of people’s ability to foresee harms and stop said harms from happening. Plus, I think saying that duty is owed to any person harmed is a slippery slope. When does it end?
 
From an ethical perspective, though, the employer absolutely should have fired the employee when several female coworkers accused him of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Despite the fact that the employer couldn’t have known this would happen, this specific crime wouldn’t have happened in the way that it did had Keller fired the employee. So ethically, I would argue that this crime is partially on him.

Discussion 2 Response 2:

There are four key elements to a negligence claim. 
•    Existence of a legal duty the defendant owed to the plaintiff
•    Defendant’s breach of that duty
•    Plaintiffs sufferance of an injury
•    Proof that the defendant’s breach caused the injury
 
I work for a bank. The bank I work for owes a duty to clients, shareholders, employees, contractors, vendors and many more.  I believe banks owe a duty to any person harmed as a result of their misgivings.  Banks must be held to a higher standard since there is an expectation of trust in this relationship.
 
In the case of Keller v. Koca the appellate court ruled against the original ruling that the employer was negligent.  This is a difficult situation to weigh in on.  First off, what happened was wrong on every level.  There is no disputing that and the Uzan should be criminally charged for this unthinkable act and receive the maximum penalty. 
 
The analysis will focus on whether I believe the court’s ruling, overturning the original decision was correct in terms of the law.  I agree that Uzan’s employer should not be held responsible for this act.  To their knowledge, Uzan was alone.  In addition, the business was closed and no one else should have been in there with Uzan.  Since that is what the employer thought was happening, it is no different than someone breaking into the dry cleaner and performing this horrible act.  For this reason, I support the court’s ruling. 
 
The dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Mullarkey states that Uzan’s employer should be held accountable to negligence.  Due to Uzan’s history of illegal behavior related to minors as well as a propensity for sexually harassing young women. This came from consistent and credible testimony from three woman that were sexually harassed or assaulted by Uzan.  All three employees complained to Keller and made Keller aware of the assaults.  The trial court also uncovered that the assault of Koca was very similar to the assaults reported by these three women.

Although there are very good points made here by Justice Mullarkey, they are not enough to satisfy negligence by the dry-cleaning business.  Keller has a right to protect its customers and employees.  Had one of these parties brought a case against the dry cleaner I would absolutely support their claim.  This is a foreseeable plaintiff, the duty I agree with for most businesses.  The dissenting justice is applying negligent claim to a dry-cleaning business under “any person harmed” which I do not agree with for a dry-cleaning business.