,TABLE OF CONTENTS
HO HO HO
Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 2. The Court Systems
HO HO HO HO
Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
HO HO HO HO
Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
HO HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
HO HO HO
Chapter 10. Contracts
HO HO
Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 12. Business Organizations
HO HO HO
Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
HO HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
HO HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
HO HO HO
Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
HO HO HO HO
Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
HO HO HO
Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
HO HO HO
Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
HO HO HO
Chapter 21. Environmental Law
HO HO HO
Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
,CHAPTER 1 HO
Table of Contents HO HO
Answer to Discussion Question ............................................................................................................... 1
HO HO HO
Answers to Case Questions ..................................................................................................................... 1
HO HO HO
Answers to Ethics and Social Questions ................................................................................................... 3
HO HO HO HO HO
Answer to Discussion Question HO HO HO
Should the common law maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” apply to an immigrant who speakslittle English
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO H
and was not educated in the United States? How about for a tourist who does not speak English? Everyone know
O HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
s criminal acts are prohibited, but what about subtler rules that differ across countries and so may be misunderst
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ood by foreigners?
HO HO
Answer: It is generally true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Citizens are deemed to have constructive kno
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
wledge of the law. Yet, as well known as this rule is, it is surprising how often it is proffered as an excuse. (
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
A Westlaw search cases finds hundreds of examples). Examples include: Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super) (lack o
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
f knowledge regarding the state‘s usury laws is no excuse for the inclusion of an illegal interest rate in a sal
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
es contract); and Plumlee v. Paddock (ignorance of thefact that the subject matter of the contract was illeg
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
al was not excuse). The courts have provided a small exception to the rule when it comes to people in lack
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
of English language skills. Consider Flanery v. Kuska, (defendant did not speak English was advised by a frie
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
nd that an answer to a complaint was not required); Ramon v. Dept. of Transportation, (no English and an i
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
nability to understand the law required for an excuse); Yurechko v. County of Allegheny, (Ignorance and wit
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
h the fact that the municipality suffered no hardship in late lawsuit filing was an excuse).
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Answers to Case Questions HO HO HO
1. Facts from an English judge’s decision in 1884: “The crew of an English yacht ................... were cast away in
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
a storm on the high seas . . . and were compelled to put into an open boat. ................ They had no supply
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
of water and no supply of food. . . . That on the eighteenth day . . . they ............... suggested that one
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
should be sacrificed to save the rest. . . . That next day . . . they . . . went to the boy .................. put a knife
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
into his throat and killed him . . . the three men fed upon the body.............. of the boy for four days; [then]
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and [they] were rescued. . . . and committed for trial. . . .
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be sopicked
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO
up and rescued, but would ...................... have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
condition, was likely to have died before them ............. The real question in this case [is] whether killing
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
under the conditions set forth .......... be or be not murder.” Do you consider the acts to be immoral?
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
[Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)]
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Answer: This points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated by legal culture--
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
whichdetermines whether law will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or abused. It is limited by the informal rul
O
H HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
es of the society-- HO HO HO
its customs and values. One limit is the extent to which society will allow the formal rules to be imposed wh
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
en a crime is committed in odd circumstances. Here there was an intentional murder. Does the motive for t
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
he murder, the effort to save several lives by sacrificing one
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
, life, make it a crime that should be punished? Not all crimes are treated the same. It also raisesquestions abo
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO
ut the desirability of not giving judges flexibility in sentencing.
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
There was a precedent for a light sentence in this case in U.S. law: U.S. v. Holmes, 20 F. Cas. 360 (No. 15383
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
) (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several passengers madeit to the only lifeboat,
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO
which was far too overcrowded. The captain decided to save the women and children and threw several me
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
n overboard. The lifeboat was rescued. The grand jury refused to indict the captain from murder, only for
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
manslaughter. He got a six month sentence. HO HO HO HO HO HO
The British judge in the case here imposed the death penalty upon the person who survived. Thejudge f
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO
ound it difficult to rule that every man on board had the right to make law by his own hand.The Crown
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO
reduced the sentence to six months. HO HO HO HO HO
2. Smoking is a serious health hazard. Cigarettes are legal. Should cigarette manufacturers be liable for the ser
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ious illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their unavoidably dangerous products, eventhough they post a
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO
warning on the package and consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by smoking? [Cipollone v. Ligget
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
t Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)]
HO HO HO HO HO HO
Answer: The general rule that exists now is that since the government has ordered the posting of warninglabels
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO
on cigarettes, and since the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers have been warned and are not
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
due compensation if they kill themselves by smoking. The Cippoline case, since reviewed by the Supreme C
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ourt, appears to be of limited impact since the victim was adjudged to have become addicted to cigarettes
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
before the warning label was ordered in 1964. If cigarette makers were held responsible for all health probl
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ems associated with cigarettes, then, like alcohol and other dangerous products, the damages would likely
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
be so high it would effectively ban the products. Presumably, in a free society if adults are clearly informed
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
of the risks of products that cannot be made safe, they accept the risk. Tobacco and alcohol producers can
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
not take the dangers out of the products except at the margin by encouraging responsible drinking and the
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
like. Are drugs like cocaine different?
HO HO HO HO HO
3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
trail bikes. The boys were riding on public streets, ran a stop sign, and were hit by a truck. The bikes had clea
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
r warning labels on the front stating they were only for off-
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
road use. The manual stated the bikes were not to be usedon public streets. The parents sued Honda. The su
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
preme court of Washington said one basic issue existed: “Is a manufacturer liable when children are injured
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
while riding one of its mini- HO HO HO HO HO
trail bikes on apublic road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it unethical to make prod
HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ucts like mini- HO HO
trail bikes children will use when we know accidents like this will happen? [Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
P.2d 655 Sup. Ct, Wash., (1986)]
HO HO HO HO HO
Answer: The court found no liability for the manufacturers. There was no defect; the product was safe for intend
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ed use. Safety instructions were clear; the parents let the boys ride the bikes. Anything can bedangerous--
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H
baseballs are dangerous when they hit the head, swings are dangerous when kids jumpout of them; there i
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO
s only so much that can be done to make the government the ―national nanny‖ asthe Washington Post on
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO
ce said about excessive consumer protection. Parents must accept a high degree of responsible for their o
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
wn children. HO
4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age could not work in the
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
battery-
making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the battery operation could causeharm to unborn babie
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO
s. The company was concerned about possible legal liability for injury sufferedby babies of mothers who had
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO H
worked in the battery division. The Supreme Court held the companypolicy was illegal. It was an “excuse for
O HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO HO HO H
denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the Court forcing the company to be unethical by allo
O HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
wing pregnant women who ignore the warnings to expose their babies to the lead? [United Auto Workers v.
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)]
HO HO HO HO HO HO
Answer: The Court held it a form of sex discrimination to prevent women of child-
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
HO HO HO
Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 2. The Court Systems
HO HO HO HO
Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
HO HO HO HO
Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
HO HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
HO HO HO
Chapter 10. Contracts
HO HO
Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 12. Business Organizations
HO HO HO
Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
HO HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
HO HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
HO HO HO HO HO
Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
HO HO HO
Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
HO HO HO HO
Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
HO HO HO
Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
HO HO HO
Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
HO HO HO
Chapter 21. Environmental Law
HO HO HO
Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
,CHAPTER 1 HO
Table of Contents HO HO
Answer to Discussion Question ............................................................................................................... 1
HO HO HO
Answers to Case Questions ..................................................................................................................... 1
HO HO HO
Answers to Ethics and Social Questions ................................................................................................... 3
HO HO HO HO HO
Answer to Discussion Question HO HO HO
Should the common law maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” apply to an immigrant who speakslittle English
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO H
and was not educated in the United States? How about for a tourist who does not speak English? Everyone know
O HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
s criminal acts are prohibited, but what about subtler rules that differ across countries and so may be misunderst
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ood by foreigners?
HO HO
Answer: It is generally true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Citizens are deemed to have constructive kno
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
wledge of the law. Yet, as well known as this rule is, it is surprising how often it is proffered as an excuse. (
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
A Westlaw search cases finds hundreds of examples). Examples include: Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super) (lack o
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
f knowledge regarding the state‘s usury laws is no excuse for the inclusion of an illegal interest rate in a sal
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
es contract); and Plumlee v. Paddock (ignorance of thefact that the subject matter of the contract was illeg
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
al was not excuse). The courts have provided a small exception to the rule when it comes to people in lack
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
of English language skills. Consider Flanery v. Kuska, (defendant did not speak English was advised by a frie
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
nd that an answer to a complaint was not required); Ramon v. Dept. of Transportation, (no English and an i
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
nability to understand the law required for an excuse); Yurechko v. County of Allegheny, (Ignorance and wit
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
h the fact that the municipality suffered no hardship in late lawsuit filing was an excuse).
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Answers to Case Questions HO HO HO
1. Facts from an English judge’s decision in 1884: “The crew of an English yacht ................... were cast away in
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
a storm on the high seas . . . and were compelled to put into an open boat. ................ They had no supply
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
of water and no supply of food. . . . That on the eighteenth day . . . they ............... suggested that one
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
should be sacrificed to save the rest. . . . That next day . . . they . . . went to the boy .................. put a knife
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
into his throat and killed him . . . the three men fed upon the body.............. of the boy for four days; [then]
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and [they] were rescued. . . . and committed for trial. . . .
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be sopicked
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO
up and rescued, but would ...................... have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
condition, was likely to have died before them ............. The real question in this case [is] whether killing
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
under the conditions set forth .......... be or be not murder.” Do you consider the acts to be immoral?
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
[Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)]
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Answer: This points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated by legal culture--
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
whichdetermines whether law will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or abused. It is limited by the informal rul
O
H HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
es of the society-- HO HO HO
its customs and values. One limit is the extent to which society will allow the formal rules to be imposed wh
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
en a crime is committed in odd circumstances. Here there was an intentional murder. Does the motive for t
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
he murder, the effort to save several lives by sacrificing one
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
, life, make it a crime that should be punished? Not all crimes are treated the same. It also raisesquestions abo
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO
ut the desirability of not giving judges flexibility in sentencing.
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
There was a precedent for a light sentence in this case in U.S. law: U.S. v. Holmes, 20 F. Cas. 360 (No. 15383
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
) (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several passengers madeit to the only lifeboat,
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO
which was far too overcrowded. The captain decided to save the women and children and threw several me
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
n overboard. The lifeboat was rescued. The grand jury refused to indict the captain from murder, only for
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
manslaughter. He got a six month sentence. HO HO HO HO HO HO
The British judge in the case here imposed the death penalty upon the person who survived. Thejudge f
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO
ound it difficult to rule that every man on board had the right to make law by his own hand.The Crown
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO
reduced the sentence to six months. HO HO HO HO HO
2. Smoking is a serious health hazard. Cigarettes are legal. Should cigarette manufacturers be liable for the ser
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ious illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their unavoidably dangerous products, eventhough they post a
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO
warning on the package and consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by smoking? [Cipollone v. Ligget
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
t Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)]
HO HO HO HO HO HO
Answer: The general rule that exists now is that since the government has ordered the posting of warninglabels
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO
on cigarettes, and since the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers have been warned and are not
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
due compensation if they kill themselves by smoking. The Cippoline case, since reviewed by the Supreme C
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ourt, appears to be of limited impact since the victim was adjudged to have become addicted to cigarettes
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
before the warning label was ordered in 1964. If cigarette makers were held responsible for all health probl
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ems associated with cigarettes, then, like alcohol and other dangerous products, the damages would likely
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
be so high it would effectively ban the products. Presumably, in a free society if adults are clearly informed
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
of the risks of products that cannot be made safe, they accept the risk. Tobacco and alcohol producers can
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
not take the dangers out of the products except at the margin by encouraging responsible drinking and the
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
like. Are drugs like cocaine different?
HO HO HO HO HO
3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
trail bikes. The boys were riding on public streets, ran a stop sign, and were hit by a truck. The bikes had clea
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
r warning labels on the front stating they were only for off-
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
road use. The manual stated the bikes were not to be usedon public streets. The parents sued Honda. The su
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
preme court of Washington said one basic issue existed: “Is a manufacturer liable when children are injured
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
while riding one of its mini- HO HO HO HO HO
trail bikes on apublic road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it unethical to make prod
HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ucts like mini- HO HO
trail bikes children will use when we know accidents like this will happen? [Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
P.2d 655 Sup. Ct, Wash., (1986)]
HO HO HO HO HO
Answer: The court found no liability for the manufacturers. There was no defect; the product was safe for intend
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
ed use. Safety instructions were clear; the parents let the boys ride the bikes. Anything can bedangerous--
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H
baseballs are dangerous when they hit the head, swings are dangerous when kids jumpout of them; there i
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO
s only so much that can be done to make the government the ―national nanny‖ asthe Washington Post on
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO
ce said about excessive consumer protection. Parents must accept a high degree of responsible for their o
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
wn children. HO
4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age could not work in the
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
battery-
making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the battery operation could causeharm to unborn babie
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO
s. The company was concerned about possible legal liability for injury sufferedby babies of mothers who had
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO H
worked in the battery division. The Supreme Court held the companypolicy was illegal. It was an “excuse for
O HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO O
H HO HO HO HO HO HO HO H
denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the Court forcing the company to be unethical by allo
O HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
wing pregnant women who ignore the warnings to expose their babies to the lead? [United Auto Workers v.
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)]
HO HO HO HO HO HO
Answer: The Court held it a form of sex discrimination to prevent women of child-
HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
