Solution and Answer Guide: Jennings, Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 13e, 2027, 9798214056326; Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
Solution and Answer Guide
JENNINGS, BUSINESS: ITS LEGAL, ETHICAL, AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT , 13E, 2027,
9798214056326; C HAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Review Question Solutions...........................................................................................1
Review Case Solutions..................................................................................................3
REVIEW QUESTION SOLUTIONS
1. Bryant Gunderson is a sole proprietor with a successful bungee-jumping business. He is considering
incorporating his business. What levels and sources of law would affect and govern the process of
incorporation?
Solution:
Gunderson will be incorporated under state legislative law. He will have to make tax elections under
federal law. Local zoning laws will affect issues such as where the corporation can operate, signs, etc. His
employees will be affected by state compensation laws, federal labor laws, and federal pension plan
regulations. In short, there really is not a set of laws that will not affect his business.
2. Jeffrey Stalwart has just been arrested for ticket scalping outside the Great Western Forum in Los Angeles.
Jeffrey sold a ticket to a Taylor Swift concert to an intense fan for $4,200; the face value of the ticket was
$1,200. Ticket scalping in Los Angeles is a misdemeanor. Will Jeffrey’s court proceedings be civil or
criminal?
Solution:
Jeffrey will be going through a criminal procedure; if a fan sues him, it will be a civil process.
3. The U.S. Golf Association put a new rule in 2016 that prohibits players from anchoring their putters to their
chests. Tim Clark, a golfer from South Africa, who has won 10 championships, anchors his putter to his
chest and reacted, “We are not going to roll over and just accept this. We have been put in a position where
we have to fight for our livelihoods.”1 The putter costs $1,247. Explain what source of law is involved.
How can the rule be challenged? Where would the golfers go to court?
1
Steve DiMeglio, “Golf Could Go to Court,” USA Today, May 22, 2013, p. 1C.
© 2027 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly 1
accessible website, in whole or in part.
,Solution and Answer Guide: Jennings, Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 13e, 2027, 9798214056326; Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
Solution:
This is a private law. However, the rule affects players who have been holding their putters to their chests
and have won championships using that method of play. The judicial challenge would be in the United
States and would be based on whether the private law violated some right, such as a constitutional
protection.
4. Define and contrast the following:
a. Civil law and criminal law
b. Substantive law and procedural law
c. Common law and statutory law
d. Private law and public law
Solution:
a. Civil law—rights among and between individuals; remedies of damages and injunctions
Criminal law—establishes societal standards of conduct, jail, and fines as punishment
b. Substantive law—establishes rights and duties
Procedural law—establishes process for enforcement of laws and rights
c. Common law—non-codified law; in court cases
Statutory law—codified law
d. Private law—contracts, leases, rules of workplace
Public law—laws passed by some governmental agency
5. They call them “floating bacchanals.” Offshore from Florida and California cities, sunseekers take their
rafts and boats and tie them together as they share adult beverages, music, swimming, and the sun.
However, after a day of floating, many involved in the floating community are so drunk that they cannot
get their rafts and boats back to shore. In addition, safety patrols have difficulties gaining access to act
when there are arguments. What level of law could be directed to control these types of activities? Where
would those laws be promulgated?
Solution:
This would and has been a focus for city ordinances. Regulations have included requiring permits and
safety regulations on tying boats and floats together. Additionally, there are more safety personnel added
with the funds from issuing permits. At the state level, the penalties for drunkenness could be expanded to
include operation of rafts and boats.
6. Classify the following subject matters as substantive or procedural laws:
a. Traffic law on speeding
b. Small claims court rules
c. Evidence
d. Labor law
e. Securities
Solution:
a. Traffic law on speeding—substantive laws; governs what constitutes traffic violation
b. Small claims court rules—procedural laws; governs how the court proceeds
c. Evidence—procedural law for trials
d. Labor law—has both substance and procedure
e. Securities—has both substance and procedure
7. Juul has been the leader in the development of vaping products. Its flavored products have been popular
with high school students. As illnesses and deaths tied to the use of vaping products grew, cities and states
began passing laws that restricted sales by age, required ID, or limited sales locations. Local retailers
objected to the laws because the products were legal under federal law. However, the FDA ordered Juul to
© 2027 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly 2
accessible website, in whole or in part.
,Solution and Answer Guide: Jennings, Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 13e, 2027, 9798214056326; Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
stop its sales in 2022, but in 2024 reversed the ban and placed Juul’s products back under agency review. 2
Juul noted the research that concluded that its products help people to stop smoking cigarettes. Juul also
pulled its ads targeting young people and stopped selling flavored products to teens. Discuss all the levels
of the pyramid of laws involved in this controversial product. Explain why Juul took voluntary actions.
Solution:
Vaping illustrates how difficult the interaction of all layers of laws can be when there is a safety or health
issue that has everyone concerned. State laws and local ordinances were more quickly enacted, but the
health effects brought federal notice and the move for national regulation. The question of constitutional
preemption applied. There is also the effort of self-regulation by Juul and whether that would be sufficient
as the full force of the pyramid descended on the products. The solution came in 2024 when the federal
government reinstated Juul’s review—there was a type of negotiated outcome because there were so many
legal issues to be resolved. The federal involvement brought preemption and the ability to centralize
review, health warnings, and accountability.
REVIEW CASE SOLUTIONS
1. Happy, the elephant, has been at the Bronx Zoo for more than 40 years. The Nonhuman Rights Project,
Inc., brought suit for a writ of habeas corpus to free Happy and allow her to return to a more natural
habitat, such as an elephant sanctuary. A writ of habeas corpus is an action brought to free an individual
from detention. What issues would the court have to examine in trying to determine what should happen to
Happy? [In the Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (on behalf of Happy) v. Breheny, 38 N.Y.S. 555,
197 N.E.3d 921 (C.A. 2022)]
Solution:
For centuries, the common law writ of habeas corpus has safeguarded the liberty rights of human beings by
providing a means to secure release from illegal custody. The question is whether the Nonhuman Rights
Project may seek habeas corpus relief on behalf of Happy. Because the writ of habeas corpus is intended to
protect the liberty right of human beings to be free of unlawful confinement, it has no applicability to
Happy, a nonhuman animal who is not a “person” subjected to illegal detention. No one disputes that
elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion, the court held that the lower court
was correct to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the court affirmed.
The court had to determine whether Happy was a legal person. The court heard evidence on the intelligence
and sensitivity of elephants, but Happy was not a legal person. The following summarizes the evidence
presented:
To support its request, petitioner proffered affidavits from several experts specializing in elephant
study and care attesting to the general characteristics of elephants. These experts asserted that
elephants are “autonomous beings” in as much as they “direct[ ] their behavior based on some
non-observable, internal cognitive process, rather than simply responding reflexively.” Further,
they explained—and it is essentially undisputed—that elephants are intelligent beings, who have
the capacity for self-awareness, long-term memory, intentional communication, learning and
problem-solving skills, empathy, and significant emotional response.
The piece that was missing was whether Happy was suffering. The court found that the experts did not
comment on Happy’s particular circumstances, the adequacy of her environment, or the care she receives at
the Zoo.
There was testimony from the Bronx officials on Happy’s life in the zoo.
The Bronx Zoo’s Chief Veterinarian proffered an affidavit detailing the Zoo’s efforts to “ensure Happy’s
continued physical and psychological well-being and health” and averring that Happy is “currently healthy
and well-adapted to her present surroundings.” He opined that removing Happy from her long-term home
2
Jennifer Maloney, “Juul Ban Reversed, Opening Door for Clearance,” Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2024, p. B1.
© 2027 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly 3
accessible website, in whole or in part.
, Solution and Answer Guide: Jennings, Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 13e, 2027, 9798214056326; Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
would cause her “substantial stress” and “create a serious risk to her long-term health.” The Associate
Director of the Bronx Zoo also submitted an affidavit describing the Zoo’s compliance with elephant
management and care standards and accreditation requirements, Happy’s routine medical care, her physical
accommodations, and her comfort and familiarity with her caregivers. Finally, respondent Breheny—
Director of the Bronx Zoo—explained that Happy was housed in a separate enclosure adjoining Patty’s
because Happy “has a history of not interacting well with other elephants,” but she is nevertheless able to
interact with Patty through “sound, olfaction, and touch.” Breheny pointed out—and the elephant sanctuary
in question conceded—that unrelated elephants living together in captivity may have acrimonious
relationships and, thus, a transfer could not guarantee Happy increased interaction with other elephants.
2. Around 5:00 a.m. on January 1, 2004, Matthew Schmucker, who was 18 at the time, was traveling alone in
a horse and buggy near the intersection of Indiana State Road 37 and Notestine Road in Harlan, Indiana. He
was intoxicated at the time and failed to stop at an intersection, thereby colliding with the side of a 2003
Dodge Stratus carrying David Candon and Monica Young, who is now paralyzed from the neck down as a
result of the accident. Schmucker was charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol and failing to
stop at a throughway. Candon, Young, and their children, who were in the car at the time of the auto/buggy
collision, brought suit against Schmucker. Schmucker declared bankruptcy and asked to be discharged from
his obligations to Candon and Young. Candon and Young argued that the injury was a “willful and
malicious injury by a vessel” under the bankruptcy code and was thus a nondischargeable debt. Schmucker
said a horse and buggy is not a vessel. Discuss the role of the court in this case. What would the court look
to in making its decision? What is the impact of the court’s decision on the ability of the family to recover
for injuries? [Young v. Schmucker, 409 B.R. 477 (N.D. Ind. 2008)]
Solution:
Is a horse and buggy a motor vehicle? This is an illustration of the statutory interpretation role of the courts.
What the court determines here in terms of the definition of a “vessel” and whether a horse and buggy
qualifies, controls whether there will be any recovery for the injured family or whether the obligation will
be discharged in bankruptcy.
The court’s opinion in pertinent part appears below:
The bankruptcy court did not analyze this question because it found that “Plaintiffs acknowledge
that a horse and buggy is not a motor vehicle.” (Bankr.Ct. Order 4, DE 2-13.) While the
appellants’ brief before the bankruptcy court did not explicitly state that they were conceding that
a horse and buggy is not a “motor vehicle,” their entire argument was directed at establishing that
a horse and buggy qualifies as a “vessel.” A party may waive an argument either explicitly or
implicitly if it is not raised at the proper time. See In re Kontrick, 295 F.3d 724, 735 (7th Cir.
2002). However, where an appellant “raises a pure issue of law on which factual development in
the bankruptcy court would cast no light, the waiver [can] be forgiven.” Matter of Reese, 91 F.3d
37, 39 (7th Cir. 1996). The appellee does not argue that the appellant waived her argument that a
horse and buggy is a motor vehicle, nor does he argue that he suffers any undue prejudice by
having the Court consider the argument. The Court will therefore consider the appellants’
argument that a horse and buggy is a “motor vehicle.”
The appellee provides two definitions for “motor vehicle.” Under Indiana law, a “motor vehicle”
is “a vehicle that is self-propelled.” Ind. Code § 9-13-2-105. While an Indiana statute can shed
some light on the ordinary meaning of a term, it does not say much about what the term means in a
Congressional statute. For that, the appellee’s second definition is much more helpful. Congress
has conditioned federal funds to the states on the states’ enactment and enforcement of repeat
intoxicated driver laws. 23 U.S.C. § 164. The statute conditioning these funds defines “motor
vehicle” as “a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use
on public highways, but does not include a vehicle operated solely on a rail line or a commercial
vehicle.” 23 U.S.C. § 164(a)(4). This statute is helpful in discerning the definition of “motor
vehicle” in the Bankruptcy Code section excepting claims arising from the intoxicated operation
© 2027 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly 4
accessible website, in whole or in part.
Solution and Answer Guide
JENNINGS, BUSINESS: ITS LEGAL, ETHICAL, AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT , 13E, 2027,
9798214056326; C HAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Review Question Solutions...........................................................................................1
Review Case Solutions..................................................................................................3
REVIEW QUESTION SOLUTIONS
1. Bryant Gunderson is a sole proprietor with a successful bungee-jumping business. He is considering
incorporating his business. What levels and sources of law would affect and govern the process of
incorporation?
Solution:
Gunderson will be incorporated under state legislative law. He will have to make tax elections under
federal law. Local zoning laws will affect issues such as where the corporation can operate, signs, etc. His
employees will be affected by state compensation laws, federal labor laws, and federal pension plan
regulations. In short, there really is not a set of laws that will not affect his business.
2. Jeffrey Stalwart has just been arrested for ticket scalping outside the Great Western Forum in Los Angeles.
Jeffrey sold a ticket to a Taylor Swift concert to an intense fan for $4,200; the face value of the ticket was
$1,200. Ticket scalping in Los Angeles is a misdemeanor. Will Jeffrey’s court proceedings be civil or
criminal?
Solution:
Jeffrey will be going through a criminal procedure; if a fan sues him, it will be a civil process.
3. The U.S. Golf Association put a new rule in 2016 that prohibits players from anchoring their putters to their
chests. Tim Clark, a golfer from South Africa, who has won 10 championships, anchors his putter to his
chest and reacted, “We are not going to roll over and just accept this. We have been put in a position where
we have to fight for our livelihoods.”1 The putter costs $1,247. Explain what source of law is involved.
How can the rule be challenged? Where would the golfers go to court?
1
Steve DiMeglio, “Golf Could Go to Court,” USA Today, May 22, 2013, p. 1C.
© 2027 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly 1
accessible website, in whole or in part.
,Solution and Answer Guide: Jennings, Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 13e, 2027, 9798214056326; Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
Solution:
This is a private law. However, the rule affects players who have been holding their putters to their chests
and have won championships using that method of play. The judicial challenge would be in the United
States and would be based on whether the private law violated some right, such as a constitutional
protection.
4. Define and contrast the following:
a. Civil law and criminal law
b. Substantive law and procedural law
c. Common law and statutory law
d. Private law and public law
Solution:
a. Civil law—rights among and between individuals; remedies of damages and injunctions
Criminal law—establishes societal standards of conduct, jail, and fines as punishment
b. Substantive law—establishes rights and duties
Procedural law—establishes process for enforcement of laws and rights
c. Common law—non-codified law; in court cases
Statutory law—codified law
d. Private law—contracts, leases, rules of workplace
Public law—laws passed by some governmental agency
5. They call them “floating bacchanals.” Offshore from Florida and California cities, sunseekers take their
rafts and boats and tie them together as they share adult beverages, music, swimming, and the sun.
However, after a day of floating, many involved in the floating community are so drunk that they cannot
get their rafts and boats back to shore. In addition, safety patrols have difficulties gaining access to act
when there are arguments. What level of law could be directed to control these types of activities? Where
would those laws be promulgated?
Solution:
This would and has been a focus for city ordinances. Regulations have included requiring permits and
safety regulations on tying boats and floats together. Additionally, there are more safety personnel added
with the funds from issuing permits. At the state level, the penalties for drunkenness could be expanded to
include operation of rafts and boats.
6. Classify the following subject matters as substantive or procedural laws:
a. Traffic law on speeding
b. Small claims court rules
c. Evidence
d. Labor law
e. Securities
Solution:
a. Traffic law on speeding—substantive laws; governs what constitutes traffic violation
b. Small claims court rules—procedural laws; governs how the court proceeds
c. Evidence—procedural law for trials
d. Labor law—has both substance and procedure
e. Securities—has both substance and procedure
7. Juul has been the leader in the development of vaping products. Its flavored products have been popular
with high school students. As illnesses and deaths tied to the use of vaping products grew, cities and states
began passing laws that restricted sales by age, required ID, or limited sales locations. Local retailers
objected to the laws because the products were legal under federal law. However, the FDA ordered Juul to
© 2027 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly 2
accessible website, in whole or in part.
,Solution and Answer Guide: Jennings, Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 13e, 2027, 9798214056326; Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
stop its sales in 2022, but in 2024 reversed the ban and placed Juul’s products back under agency review. 2
Juul noted the research that concluded that its products help people to stop smoking cigarettes. Juul also
pulled its ads targeting young people and stopped selling flavored products to teens. Discuss all the levels
of the pyramid of laws involved in this controversial product. Explain why Juul took voluntary actions.
Solution:
Vaping illustrates how difficult the interaction of all layers of laws can be when there is a safety or health
issue that has everyone concerned. State laws and local ordinances were more quickly enacted, but the
health effects brought federal notice and the move for national regulation. The question of constitutional
preemption applied. There is also the effort of self-regulation by Juul and whether that would be sufficient
as the full force of the pyramid descended on the products. The solution came in 2024 when the federal
government reinstated Juul’s review—there was a type of negotiated outcome because there were so many
legal issues to be resolved. The federal involvement brought preemption and the ability to centralize
review, health warnings, and accountability.
REVIEW CASE SOLUTIONS
1. Happy, the elephant, has been at the Bronx Zoo for more than 40 years. The Nonhuman Rights Project,
Inc., brought suit for a writ of habeas corpus to free Happy and allow her to return to a more natural
habitat, such as an elephant sanctuary. A writ of habeas corpus is an action brought to free an individual
from detention. What issues would the court have to examine in trying to determine what should happen to
Happy? [In the Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (on behalf of Happy) v. Breheny, 38 N.Y.S. 555,
197 N.E.3d 921 (C.A. 2022)]
Solution:
For centuries, the common law writ of habeas corpus has safeguarded the liberty rights of human beings by
providing a means to secure release from illegal custody. The question is whether the Nonhuman Rights
Project may seek habeas corpus relief on behalf of Happy. Because the writ of habeas corpus is intended to
protect the liberty right of human beings to be free of unlawful confinement, it has no applicability to
Happy, a nonhuman animal who is not a “person” subjected to illegal detention. No one disputes that
elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion, the court held that the lower court
was correct to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the court affirmed.
The court had to determine whether Happy was a legal person. The court heard evidence on the intelligence
and sensitivity of elephants, but Happy was not a legal person. The following summarizes the evidence
presented:
To support its request, petitioner proffered affidavits from several experts specializing in elephant
study and care attesting to the general characteristics of elephants. These experts asserted that
elephants are “autonomous beings” in as much as they “direct[ ] their behavior based on some
non-observable, internal cognitive process, rather than simply responding reflexively.” Further,
they explained—and it is essentially undisputed—that elephants are intelligent beings, who have
the capacity for self-awareness, long-term memory, intentional communication, learning and
problem-solving skills, empathy, and significant emotional response.
The piece that was missing was whether Happy was suffering. The court found that the experts did not
comment on Happy’s particular circumstances, the adequacy of her environment, or the care she receives at
the Zoo.
There was testimony from the Bronx officials on Happy’s life in the zoo.
The Bronx Zoo’s Chief Veterinarian proffered an affidavit detailing the Zoo’s efforts to “ensure Happy’s
continued physical and psychological well-being and health” and averring that Happy is “currently healthy
and well-adapted to her present surroundings.” He opined that removing Happy from her long-term home
2
Jennifer Maloney, “Juul Ban Reversed, Opening Door for Clearance,” Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2024, p. B1.
© 2027 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly 3
accessible website, in whole or in part.
, Solution and Answer Guide: Jennings, Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, 13e, 2027, 9798214056326; Chapter 1: Introduction to Law
would cause her “substantial stress” and “create a serious risk to her long-term health.” The Associate
Director of the Bronx Zoo also submitted an affidavit describing the Zoo’s compliance with elephant
management and care standards and accreditation requirements, Happy’s routine medical care, her physical
accommodations, and her comfort and familiarity with her caregivers. Finally, respondent Breheny—
Director of the Bronx Zoo—explained that Happy was housed in a separate enclosure adjoining Patty’s
because Happy “has a history of not interacting well with other elephants,” but she is nevertheless able to
interact with Patty through “sound, olfaction, and touch.” Breheny pointed out—and the elephant sanctuary
in question conceded—that unrelated elephants living together in captivity may have acrimonious
relationships and, thus, a transfer could not guarantee Happy increased interaction with other elephants.
2. Around 5:00 a.m. on January 1, 2004, Matthew Schmucker, who was 18 at the time, was traveling alone in
a horse and buggy near the intersection of Indiana State Road 37 and Notestine Road in Harlan, Indiana. He
was intoxicated at the time and failed to stop at an intersection, thereby colliding with the side of a 2003
Dodge Stratus carrying David Candon and Monica Young, who is now paralyzed from the neck down as a
result of the accident. Schmucker was charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol and failing to
stop at a throughway. Candon, Young, and their children, who were in the car at the time of the auto/buggy
collision, brought suit against Schmucker. Schmucker declared bankruptcy and asked to be discharged from
his obligations to Candon and Young. Candon and Young argued that the injury was a “willful and
malicious injury by a vessel” under the bankruptcy code and was thus a nondischargeable debt. Schmucker
said a horse and buggy is not a vessel. Discuss the role of the court in this case. What would the court look
to in making its decision? What is the impact of the court’s decision on the ability of the family to recover
for injuries? [Young v. Schmucker, 409 B.R. 477 (N.D. Ind. 2008)]
Solution:
Is a horse and buggy a motor vehicle? This is an illustration of the statutory interpretation role of the courts.
What the court determines here in terms of the definition of a “vessel” and whether a horse and buggy
qualifies, controls whether there will be any recovery for the injured family or whether the obligation will
be discharged in bankruptcy.
The court’s opinion in pertinent part appears below:
The bankruptcy court did not analyze this question because it found that “Plaintiffs acknowledge
that a horse and buggy is not a motor vehicle.” (Bankr.Ct. Order 4, DE 2-13.) While the
appellants’ brief before the bankruptcy court did not explicitly state that they were conceding that
a horse and buggy is not a “motor vehicle,” their entire argument was directed at establishing that
a horse and buggy qualifies as a “vessel.” A party may waive an argument either explicitly or
implicitly if it is not raised at the proper time. See In re Kontrick, 295 F.3d 724, 735 (7th Cir.
2002). However, where an appellant “raises a pure issue of law on which factual development in
the bankruptcy court would cast no light, the waiver [can] be forgiven.” Matter of Reese, 91 F.3d
37, 39 (7th Cir. 1996). The appellee does not argue that the appellant waived her argument that a
horse and buggy is a motor vehicle, nor does he argue that he suffers any undue prejudice by
having the Court consider the argument. The Court will therefore consider the appellants’
argument that a horse and buggy is a “motor vehicle.”
The appellee provides two definitions for “motor vehicle.” Under Indiana law, a “motor vehicle”
is “a vehicle that is self-propelled.” Ind. Code § 9-13-2-105. While an Indiana statute can shed
some light on the ordinary meaning of a term, it does not say much about what the term means in a
Congressional statute. For that, the appellee’s second definition is much more helpful. Congress
has conditioned federal funds to the states on the states’ enactment and enforcement of repeat
intoxicated driver laws. 23 U.S.C. § 164. The statute conditioning these funds defines “motor
vehicle” as “a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use
on public highways, but does not include a vehicle operated solely on a rail line or a commercial
vehicle.” 23 U.S.C. § 164(a)(4). This statute is helpful in discerning the definition of “motor
vehicle” in the Bankruptcy Code section excepting claims arising from the intoxicated operation
© 2027 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly 4
accessible website, in whole or in part.
