Introduction to Business Law and Ethics
Running head: INTRODUCTION TO BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS.
Introduction to Business Law and Ethics
Susana Silvestri
Grand Canyon University
BUS-340
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 Facts: 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
Introduction to Business Law and Ethics
Susana Silvestri
Grand Canyon University
BUS-340
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 Facts: 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
References: Mallor, J.P., Barnes, A.J., Bowers, T. & Langvardt, A.W. (2010). Business Law (14th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2006/06SC92.pdf (Retrieved October 12, 2010)