Business Ethics Case
February 26, 2012
Business Ethics Case: Lawsuits
In every business ethics lawsuit there are many questions that must be answered. The first question that a person or organization wanting to sue must ask is if he or she has standing to sue. According to this law “the plaintiff must have some stake in the outcome of the lawsuit” (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 43). If the plaintiff does not have this they cannot bring the suit to court. The next question that must be determined is who or where will have jurisdiction over the case. This is also one of the questions that is asked in the individual assignment. Problem 3.5
The assignment asks readers to take a closer look at the National Enquirer and a lawsuit that was submitted against them. The first question asks what kind of paper the National Enquirer is. It is a tabloid publication that was founded in 1926 by William Griffin. It was later purchased by Generoso Pope, Jr. and turned into what it is today, a very scandalous supermarket magazine. The second question asks if it is ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid suit in California and the answer is no, it is not. The question of whether it is ethical is not a legal question but a moral question. The reason it is not ethical is because it is avoiding legal action and a chance to defend the paper. If those that wrote the article think it was okay to write the story, he or she should have the moral decency to show up in court. Although, one reason that the National Enquirer may have wanted to move the lawsuit closer is in hopes that Jones would give up and drop the lawsuit. The third question is if the defendants are subject to suit in California and the answer is yes. According to the Long-Arm Statue the plaintiff may sue the National Enquirer from California since the injury happened in California. Since the National Enquirer caused the accident and has nothing to gain from suing they will have no say in which court has...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document