SOLUTION MANUAL FOR m m
Business mIts mLegal, mEthical, mand mGlobal mEnvironment, m12th mEdition
mChapter m1-20
Chapter m1
Table of Contents
m m
Consider… .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Consider… m1.2 ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Consider… m1.3 ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Case mProblems ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Case m1.1..................................................................................................................................................... 2
For mthe mManager’s mDesk ........................................................................................................................... 4
The mCover-up mversus mthe mCrime, mpage m11 .............................................................................................. 4
Ethical mIssues..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Case m1.1, mpage m10 .................................................................................................................................... 4
Business mStrategy ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
COVID-19 mLockouts mand mBusiness mCivil mDisobedience ............................................................................. 5
Chapter mReview ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Answers mto mChapter mQuestions mand mProblems ....................................................................................... 6
Economics, mEthics, m& mthe mLaw: mThe mCost mof mCorporate mWrongdoing .................................................12
Consider…
Consider… m1.2
After mhe menrolled min mthe mUniversity mof mCalifornia mat mLos mAngeles m(UCLA), mDamon mThompson
mexperienced mauditory mhallucinations. mHe mbelieved mother mstudents min mthe mclassroom mand
mdormitory mwere mcriticizing mhim. mSchool madministrators meventually mlearned mof mThompson’s
mdelusions mand mattempted mto mprovide mmental mhealth mtreatment. mHowever, mone mmorning
mThompson mstabbed mfellow mstudent mKatherine mRosen mduring ma mchemistry mlab. mRosen msued mthe
muniversity mand mseveral mof mits memployees mfor mnegligence, marguing mthey mfailed mto mprotect mher
mfrom mThompson’s mforeseeable mviolent mconduct.
UCLA mis ma mstate meducational minstitution. mBased mon mthe mdecision min mthe mAvila mcase, mwhat
mshould mthe mcourt mdecide? mConsider mwhether mUCLA mhas ma mduty mto mprotect mstudents mfrom
minjury mon mthe mcampus mand, mif mso, mwhat mtypes mof minjuries. mBe msure mto mconsider mwhat mis
,different min mthis mfactual mpattern mfrom mthe
m
,facts min mAvila. mWhat mwill mthe mimpact mbe mon mstudents, mfaculty, mand madministrators mpending mon
mwhich mway mthe mcourt mdecides mon mthe missues mof mliability mand mduty? mBe msure mto mconsider mthe
mpurposes mand mcharacteristics mof mlaw min mevaluating mthe mclaim mMs. mRosen mfor minjuries. m[Regents
mof mthe mUniversity mof mCalifornia mv mSuperior mCourt, m 413 mP.3d m656 m(Cal,2018)]
Solution
The mtrial mcourt mdenied mUCLA msummary mjudgment. mUCLA mfiled ma mpetition mfor mwrit mof mmandate,
mrequesting man morder mdirecting mtrial mcourt mto menter msummary mjudgment min mits mfavor. mThe mCourt mof
mAppeal mgranted mthe mpetition. mThe mSupreme mCourt mgranted mreview, msuperseding mthe mopinion mof mthe
mCourt mof mAppeal.
The mSupreme mCourt mheld mthat mthe muniversity mhad mduty mof mcare mto mprotect mstudents mfrom
mforeseeable mviolence mduring mthe mchemistry mlab, mreversing ma mlong mline mof mprecedent.
This mcase mis mdifferent mfrom mthe mAvila mcase min mthat mUCLA mhad mknowledge mof mthe mpotential mharm
mthat mthe mstudent mcould mdo. mIn mthe mAvila mcase, mthe mconduct mwas msuch mthat mit mcould mnot mbe
manticipated mexcept mperhaps mthe mpossibility mthat mplayers mhave mdisobeyed mthe mrules mof mthe mgame,
mbut mthere mwas mno mdirect mknowledge mabout mthe mpitcher’s mtendencies mto mbean mbatters. mIn mthis
mcase, mUCLA mwas maware mof mthe mproblems mthe mstudent mhad mand mwas mworking mwith mthe mstudent.
mThe mcase mwas ma mwarning mto muniversities mabout mthe mimportance mof mcurbing mthe mbehaviors mof
mstudents mand mthen, mwhen mnecessary mremoving mthem mfrom mthe mcampus mas ma mdanger mto
mthemselves mand mother mstudents. mThe mcourt mnoted mthat mthe mscope mof mthe mduty mis mbased mon mthe
mextent mof mthe mrelationship mthe mstudent mhad mwith mthe muniversity.
The mimmunity mof mgovernment mentities mwas mcurbed min mAvila mand mnow mthe mcourts mare msimply
mdealing mwith mthe mconcept mof mduty. mWhat mis mthe mduty mof mgovernment mentities? mHow mfar mdoes mit
mextend? mWhat mactions mmust mthey mtake? m [Regents mof mthe mUniversity mof mCalifornia mv mSuperior
mCourt, m413 mP.3d m656 m(Cal. m2018)]
Consider… m1.3
Every mstate, mcounty, mand mcity mhas mlaws mthat mregulate mthe mmaximum mspeed mfor mtheir
mroadways. mYet, msurveys mindicate mthat mnearly m100% mof mus madmit mto mdriving mabove mthe
mspeed mlimit. mWhat mphilosophy mof mlaw mdo mwe mfollow mwhen mwe mdecide mwhich mlaws mto
mobey, mhow mclosely mwe mfollow mthose mlaws, mand mwhen mwe mwill mfollow mthem? mIs mthere ma
mrisk mto msociety mwhen mwe mmake mour mown mdecisions mabout mfollowing mthe mlaw?
Solution
Speeding mis man mexample mof mthe mnorm mshifting. mThat mis, mthere mis ma mlaw, mbut mfew mpeople mfollow
mthe mlaw mand mthe mresult mis mthat mthe mlaw mbecomes mmeaningless. mSome mphilosophers mfear mthat
mdisregard mof mthe mlaw mon man mindividual mbasis mcould mmean mthat mwe mare mintroducing manarchy—the
mlaw mhas mno meffect. mOthers mwould mfollow mthe mnormative mstandard mof mdoing mwhat mis macceptable mto
mothers.
Case Problems
m
Case m1.1
1. Outline mthe mcase mhistory—what meach mof mthe mcourts mdecided min mthe mcase.
, Solution
Lower mcourt mheld mthat mthe mcommunity mcolleges mwere mimmune, mso mit mnever mreached mthe
mduty missue. mThe mcourt mof mappeal mheld mthat mthe mcommunity mcolleges mwere mnot mimmune
mand mfound mthat mthey mhad mbreached mtheir mduty mto mJose.
2. Explain mthe mstandard mnow mfor mthe mliability mof mgovernment mentities.
Solution
Although mthere mis mimmunity mfor mgovernment mentities mfor minjuries mfrom mrecreational
mactivities m(hazardous mand motherwise), mthe mcourt mheld mthat mgovernment mentities mstill mhave
mduties mtoward mthose mwho mare musing mtheir mfacilities.
3. What minterests mis mthe mcourt mbalancing?
Solution
The mcourt mis mbalancing mthe mlongstanding mprotection mof mgovernment mentities mfrom mtort
mliability mwith mthe minjuries mthat mcan mresult mwhen mthere mis mno msupervision mof mthose minvolved
min mgovernment- msponsored mactivities. mThere mwas malso mthe mlongstanding mprecedent mthat mis
mbeing mchanged.
Government mentities mwill mneed mnew minsurance mlevels mand mwill mneed mto mchange mtheir
minvolvement mand msupervision mrequirements.
4. Does mthe mcourt mchange mthe mprevious mstandard mfor mliability mof mgovernment mentities? mWhy
mor mwhy mnot? mWhat meffect mwill mthe mdecision mhave mon mgovernment mentities?
Solution
See manswer mto mabove—the mholding mis ma mfundamental mchange min mthe mliability mand
mresponsibilities mof mgovernment mentities.
5. Why mwas mthere mno mbreach mof mduty mby mthe mcommunity mcolleges?
Solution
Because mbeing m“beaned” mis ma mrisk min mthe mgame mand mone mthat mthe mcolleges mcould mnot
mprevent. mAlso, mJose mwas mstill mable mto mwalk mand mgot mthe mattention mthat mhe mneeded.
6. Does mit mmatter mthat m“beaning” ma mbatter mviolates mthe mrules mof mthe mgame?
Solution
The mcourt mtakes mnote mthat mprofessional mbaseball mprohibits mbeaning, mbut mbeaning mhappens
mand mthat mit mhappens mis mnot mthe mresult mof many mactions mby msponsors mbut mindividual mchoices
mby mplayers.
However, msanctions mfor mbeaning mcould mdeter msuch mactivities—something mthe mcourt mdoes mnot
mdiscuss.
Business mIts mLegal, mEthical, mand mGlobal mEnvironment, m12th mEdition
mChapter m1-20
Chapter m1
Table of Contents
m m
Consider… .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Consider… m1.2 ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Consider… m1.3 ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Case mProblems ................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Case m1.1..................................................................................................................................................... 2
For mthe mManager’s mDesk ........................................................................................................................... 4
The mCover-up mversus mthe mCrime, mpage m11 .............................................................................................. 4
Ethical mIssues..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Case m1.1, mpage m10 .................................................................................................................................... 4
Business mStrategy ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
COVID-19 mLockouts mand mBusiness mCivil mDisobedience ............................................................................. 5
Chapter mReview ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
Answers mto mChapter mQuestions mand mProblems ....................................................................................... 6
Economics, mEthics, m& mthe mLaw: mThe mCost mof mCorporate mWrongdoing .................................................12
Consider…
Consider… m1.2
After mhe menrolled min mthe mUniversity mof mCalifornia mat mLos mAngeles m(UCLA), mDamon mThompson
mexperienced mauditory mhallucinations. mHe mbelieved mother mstudents min mthe mclassroom mand
mdormitory mwere mcriticizing mhim. mSchool madministrators meventually mlearned mof mThompson’s
mdelusions mand mattempted mto mprovide mmental mhealth mtreatment. mHowever, mone mmorning
mThompson mstabbed mfellow mstudent mKatherine mRosen mduring ma mchemistry mlab. mRosen msued mthe
muniversity mand mseveral mof mits memployees mfor mnegligence, marguing mthey mfailed mto mprotect mher
mfrom mThompson’s mforeseeable mviolent mconduct.
UCLA mis ma mstate meducational minstitution. mBased mon mthe mdecision min mthe mAvila mcase, mwhat
mshould mthe mcourt mdecide? mConsider mwhether mUCLA mhas ma mduty mto mprotect mstudents mfrom
minjury mon mthe mcampus mand, mif mso, mwhat mtypes mof minjuries. mBe msure mto mconsider mwhat mis
,different min mthis mfactual mpattern mfrom mthe
m
,facts min mAvila. mWhat mwill mthe mimpact mbe mon mstudents, mfaculty, mand madministrators mpending mon
mwhich mway mthe mcourt mdecides mon mthe missues mof mliability mand mduty? mBe msure mto mconsider mthe
mpurposes mand mcharacteristics mof mlaw min mevaluating mthe mclaim mMs. mRosen mfor minjuries. m[Regents
mof mthe mUniversity mof mCalifornia mv mSuperior mCourt, m 413 mP.3d m656 m(Cal,2018)]
Solution
The mtrial mcourt mdenied mUCLA msummary mjudgment. mUCLA mfiled ma mpetition mfor mwrit mof mmandate,
mrequesting man morder mdirecting mtrial mcourt mto menter msummary mjudgment min mits mfavor. mThe mCourt mof
mAppeal mgranted mthe mpetition. mThe mSupreme mCourt mgranted mreview, msuperseding mthe mopinion mof mthe
mCourt mof mAppeal.
The mSupreme mCourt mheld mthat mthe muniversity mhad mduty mof mcare mto mprotect mstudents mfrom
mforeseeable mviolence mduring mthe mchemistry mlab, mreversing ma mlong mline mof mprecedent.
This mcase mis mdifferent mfrom mthe mAvila mcase min mthat mUCLA mhad mknowledge mof mthe mpotential mharm
mthat mthe mstudent mcould mdo. mIn mthe mAvila mcase, mthe mconduct mwas msuch mthat mit mcould mnot mbe
manticipated mexcept mperhaps mthe mpossibility mthat mplayers mhave mdisobeyed mthe mrules mof mthe mgame,
mbut mthere mwas mno mdirect mknowledge mabout mthe mpitcher’s mtendencies mto mbean mbatters. mIn mthis
mcase, mUCLA mwas maware mof mthe mproblems mthe mstudent mhad mand mwas mworking mwith mthe mstudent.
mThe mcase mwas ma mwarning mto muniversities mabout mthe mimportance mof mcurbing mthe mbehaviors mof
mstudents mand mthen, mwhen mnecessary mremoving mthem mfrom mthe mcampus mas ma mdanger mto
mthemselves mand mother mstudents. mThe mcourt mnoted mthat mthe mscope mof mthe mduty mis mbased mon mthe
mextent mof mthe mrelationship mthe mstudent mhad mwith mthe muniversity.
The mimmunity mof mgovernment mentities mwas mcurbed min mAvila mand mnow mthe mcourts mare msimply
mdealing mwith mthe mconcept mof mduty. mWhat mis mthe mduty mof mgovernment mentities? mHow mfar mdoes mit
mextend? mWhat mactions mmust mthey mtake? m [Regents mof mthe mUniversity mof mCalifornia mv mSuperior
mCourt, m413 mP.3d m656 m(Cal. m2018)]
Consider… m1.3
Every mstate, mcounty, mand mcity mhas mlaws mthat mregulate mthe mmaximum mspeed mfor mtheir
mroadways. mYet, msurveys mindicate mthat mnearly m100% mof mus madmit mto mdriving mabove mthe
mspeed mlimit. mWhat mphilosophy mof mlaw mdo mwe mfollow mwhen mwe mdecide mwhich mlaws mto
mobey, mhow mclosely mwe mfollow mthose mlaws, mand mwhen mwe mwill mfollow mthem? mIs mthere ma
mrisk mto msociety mwhen mwe mmake mour mown mdecisions mabout mfollowing mthe mlaw?
Solution
Speeding mis man mexample mof mthe mnorm mshifting. mThat mis, mthere mis ma mlaw, mbut mfew mpeople mfollow
mthe mlaw mand mthe mresult mis mthat mthe mlaw mbecomes mmeaningless. mSome mphilosophers mfear mthat
mdisregard mof mthe mlaw mon man mindividual mbasis mcould mmean mthat mwe mare mintroducing manarchy—the
mlaw mhas mno meffect. mOthers mwould mfollow mthe mnormative mstandard mof mdoing mwhat mis macceptable mto
mothers.
Case Problems
m
Case m1.1
1. Outline mthe mcase mhistory—what meach mof mthe mcourts mdecided min mthe mcase.
, Solution
Lower mcourt mheld mthat mthe mcommunity mcolleges mwere mimmune, mso mit mnever mreached mthe
mduty missue. mThe mcourt mof mappeal mheld mthat mthe mcommunity mcolleges mwere mnot mimmune
mand mfound mthat mthey mhad mbreached mtheir mduty mto mJose.
2. Explain mthe mstandard mnow mfor mthe mliability mof mgovernment mentities.
Solution
Although mthere mis mimmunity mfor mgovernment mentities mfor minjuries mfrom mrecreational
mactivities m(hazardous mand motherwise), mthe mcourt mheld mthat mgovernment mentities mstill mhave
mduties mtoward mthose mwho mare musing mtheir mfacilities.
3. What minterests mis mthe mcourt mbalancing?
Solution
The mcourt mis mbalancing mthe mlongstanding mprotection mof mgovernment mentities mfrom mtort
mliability mwith mthe minjuries mthat mcan mresult mwhen mthere mis mno msupervision mof mthose minvolved
min mgovernment- msponsored mactivities. mThere mwas malso mthe mlongstanding mprecedent mthat mis
mbeing mchanged.
Government mentities mwill mneed mnew minsurance mlevels mand mwill mneed mto mchange mtheir
minvolvement mand msupervision mrequirements.
4. Does mthe mcourt mchange mthe mprevious mstandard mfor mliability mof mgovernment mentities? mWhy
mor mwhy mnot? mWhat meffect mwill mthe mdecision mhave mon mgovernment mentities?
Solution
See manswer mto mabove—the mholding mis ma mfundamental mchange min mthe mliability mand
mresponsibilities mof mgovernment mentities.
5. Why mwas mthere mno mbreach mof mduty mby mthe mcommunity mcolleges?
Solution
Because mbeing m“beaned” mis ma mrisk min mthe mgame mand mone mthat mthe mcolleges mcould mnot
mprevent. mAlso, mJose mwas mstill mable mto mwalk mand mgot mthe mattention mthat mhe mneeded.
6. Does mit mmatter mthat m“beaning” ma mbatter mviolates mthe mrules mof mthe mgame?
Solution
The mcourt mtakes mnote mthat mprofessional mbaseball mprohibits mbeaning, mbut mbeaning mhappens
mand mthat mit mhappens mis mnot mthe mresult mof many mactions mby msponsors mbut mindividual mchoices
mby mplayers.
However, msanctions mfor mbeaning mcould mdeter msuch mactivities—something mthe mcourt mdoes mnot
mdiscuss.
