Introduction to Business Law and Ethics

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 249
  • Published : December 5, 2010
Open Document
Text Preview

Introduction to Business Law and Ethics
Susana Silvestri
Grand Canyon University
October 17, 2010

Introduction to Business Law and Ethics

Statutory interpretation was critical to the Supreme Court of Colorado’s resolution of a 2007 case, Pringle v. Valdez. Using an online source or sources, locate the Pringle decision. Then do the following: 1. Read Justice Bender’s majority opinion and prepare a case brief of the sort described in this chapter’s appendix on “Reading and Briefing Cases.” 2. Read the dissenting opinion authored by Justice Coats. Then prepare a one-page essay that (a) summarizes the principal arguments made in the dissenting opinion; (b) sets forth your view on which analysis—the majority opinion’s or the dissenting opinion’s—is better; and (c) Provide the reasons for the view you have expressed in (b).

1. Case Briefing
Pringle v. Valdez
06SC92 (2007)
Court: Supreme Court
Class: Civil
Pringle lost control of the vehicle while taking Valdez home. Valdez was not wearing his seatbelt causing a series of injuries when ejected of the vehicle. Valdez requested compensation for impairment and disfigurement, and noneconomic losses. The argument lays on the “Noneconomic losses” which might fall under the “pain and suffering” under the seatbelt defense. Issue:

The wording used involving “pain and suffering” and “noneconomic damages” referred to in the Seatbelt defense provision Holding:
Awarding of $400,000 for physical disfigurement and impairment. Rule:
The wording in dispute “pain and suffering” and “noneconomic damages” will be further evaluated. Analysis:
“Pain and Suffering” and “noneconomic damages” are many times considered to be similar and by studying the demand of the case it can be ruled as been the same but using a different name. Conclusion:

Non-award of $100,000 for noneconomic damages. Award of $400,00 for physical impairment and disfigurement. Pringle v. Valdez is obviously at first a case of Majority Opinion which in an appeal court was turned into a dissenting opinion. Part of the case held while the other was discussed, studied and adjust for an accurate ruling, in order to explain and grant a decision by the jurors and the judge according with the Statutory Interpretation of the case. Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T. & Langvardt, A.W., 2010, p. 24

Jerrie Gray worked at a Tyson Foods plant where she was exposed to comments, gestures, and physical contact that, she alleged, constituted sexual harassment. Tyson disputed the allegation, arguing that the behavior was not unwelcome, that the complained about conduct was not based on sex, that the conduct did not affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment, and that proper remedial action was taken in response to any complaint by Gray of sexual harassment. During the trial in federal court, a witness for Gray repeatedly volunteered inadmissible testimony that the judge had to tell the jury to disregard. At one point, upon an objection from the defendant’s counsel, the witness asked, “May I say something here?” The judge told her she could not. Finally, after the jury left the courtroom, the witness had an angry outburst that continued into the hallway, in view of some of the jurors. The jury awarded Gray $185,000 in compensatory and $800,000 in punitive damages. Tyson believed that it should not have been liable, that the awards of damages were excessive and unsupported by evidence, and that the inadmissible evidence and improper conduct had tainted the proceedings. What courses of action may Tyson pursue? Tyson Foods entered a trial in a Federal Court after a sexual harassment case was filed. Tyson Foods follow protocol and tried to solve the issue ahead...
tracking img