Assignment Prompt & Instructions
[>Management homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/business-finance-management)
Tutor Discussion and Assignment
**files (14)**
– ## Week6AssignmentCaseStudiesoptionsAttachmentBUSN623.pdf
– ARTICLE_FEDERALTORTLIABILITYAFTEREGBERTV.BOULE_THECASEFORRESTORINGTHEOFFICERSUITATC.PDF
– Conflicts_of_interest_in_clini.pdf
– Minturn-v-Monradannotated.pdf
– Minturn-v-Monradannotated.pdf
– DISCUSSIONElectronic_Health_Records_PatETHICAL.pdf
– DISCUSSIONEBSCO-FullText-02_09_2026.pdf
– WEEK6PPtDISCUSSION.docx
– THESUPREMECOURT2024TERM_LEADINGCASE_II.FederalStatutesandRegulation_FederalTortClaims.PDF
– EBSCO-FullText-02_09_2026.pdf
– WHEN_TORT_FALLS_SHORT_CRISIS.pdf
– Artificial_Intelligence_and_To.pdf
– Extraordinary_Tort_Law_Eval.pdf
– Algorithms_and_the_Privacy_Tor.pdf
**## Week6AssignmentCaseStudiesoptionsAttachmentBUSN623.pdf**
BUSN623 Week 6 Assignment
Case Studies Selection
The following three Case Studies are hypothetical simulations related to
business tort situations. Choose ONE of these to complete your Week 6
Assignment. References to support your analysis and conclusion for
recommendations should be drawn from your research using relevant
Course Learning Materials and additional research from other credible
sources. The Assignment directs sources that must be used as well as your
own research.
Guiding questions are provided with each Case Study to assist you. These
questions are NOT meant to be answered as a sequence or a “list” in your
PPT. These are provided to assist your analysis to prepare your ORIGINAL
presentation about the case study you select. Follow the directions in the
Main Prompt of the Assignment along with the Case Study to organize a
cohesive PPT presentation.
Case Study – Scenario 1
Slip and Fall on Business Premises
[Common Law Tort Applies]
Fact Pattern:
Floria Fortune, a 45-year-old customer, visits a popular café owned by your
company. While walking to her table, she slips on a wet tile floor, falls, and
fractures her wrist. The café’s own policy requires "Caution: Wet Floor" signs
after cleaning, but on this occasion, the sign was missing due to an oversight
by a new employee.
Security footage reveals Jane was distracted by her phone while walking at
the time of the fall and therefore may not have noticed the visibly damp floor.
Jane files a lawsuit against the company alleging negligence, seeking
$10,000 in medical expenses and $25,000 for pain and suffering.
What is the company’s liability?
The café’s insurance company raises the possibility of arguing comparative
negligence as a mitigating defense, because of Jane’s distraction on her
phone. Is that a viable defense?
The case also raises proximate cause questions: was the café’s failure to
display the sign the sole cause of her injuries? Was the sign required?
Evaluate the café’s legal risks illustrated by the case study including ethical
implications of blaming a customer. Recommend a legal and ethical
resolution.
Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
The following guidance will help you develop your analysis of this case study
for the elements outlined in the Assignment.
Evaluate law & legal risk (CO-1, LO-1.2, LO-1.5):
o What tort principles apply?
o What are the primary legal risks under tort law associated with
this incident?
o How does the principle of proximate cause apply to the café’s
liability?
o What elements of negligence are present in this case? Was the
café’s failure to display the "Wet Floor” a breach of duty?
o How might the concept of comparative negligence influence the
outcome of the case? Is the insurance company’s suggestion
something the company should consider?
o What ethical considerations arise from potentially blaming the
customer for the accident?
o How should the café balance legal defenses with maintaining
customer trust and goodwill?
Recommend a resolution (CO-5, LO-5.3):
o Recommend a resolution for this case to minimize legal liability, align
with ethical standards, and action going forward for the company
from lesson learned from this event.
Research:
o Lingwall course text – Week 5 reading/torts
o Weiss course text for ethics guidance
o At least one court case
o See Week 5 Lesson
See Assignment for PPT help videos and Grading Rubric
Continue to Next Page
For Case Study- Scenario 2
Case Study – Scenario 2
Manufacturing Defect & Warning Label Accuracy
[Product Liability Tort]
Fact Pattern:
Your company, a mid-sized appliance manufacturer, launched a best-selling
blender. However, complaints have arisen about the blender’s blade
assembly detaching during use, causing injuries.
Henry Halloran, a customer, files a product liability claim against your
company after the blender blade broke during operation, resulting in his
suffering severe hand lacerations that required surgery.
An internal review identifies a defect in the supplier-provided blades, but the
issue was flagged during your company’s quality control, and the units were
shipped anyway due to tight production deadlines. Complicating matters,
the blender’s user manual did not include a specific warning about checking
the blade assembly for looseness before use.
Henry seeks $500,000 in damages, including medical costs, lost wages, pain
& suffering, and punitive damages. Meanwhile, a consumer advocacy group
is pushing for a recall, which could cost the company millions.
Consider the legal and ethical implications of the company’s failure to act on
quality control warnings and whether the lack of a warning label exacerbates
liability. Also consider the question of recall. What are your
recommendations?
Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
The following guidance will help you develop your analysis of this case study
for the elements outlined in the Assignment.
Evaluate legal risk & tort law principles (CO-1, LO-1.2, LO-1.5):
o What tort law principles apply?
o What legal risks does the company face from the defective blade
assembly?
o How does the failure to act on quality control warnings impact legal
liability? Ethics?
o Could the absence of a specific warning label increase the company’s
exposure to litigation or damages?
o On what basis might punitive damages be awarded? What factors in
this case could influence this decision?
Integrate Legal Compliance and Ethics (CO-5, LO-5.1, LO-5.2):
o What ethical obligations does the company have to its customers in
light of the defect?
o How should the company address the consumer advocacy group’s
concerns?
Recommend a Resolution (CO-5, LO-5.3) — consider:
o Should the company initiate a recall? Why or why not?
o What steps can the company take to rebuild customer trust while
managing financial risk?
o Should the company be taking other inhouse steps going forward?
o What should be the approach to this lawsuit?
o Recommend a resolution for this case to minimize legal liability, align
with ethical standards, and action going forward for the company
from lesson learned from this event.
Research:
o Lingwall course text – Week 5 reading/torts
o Weiss course text for ethics guidance
o At least one court case
o See Week 5 Lesson
See Assignment for PPT help videos and Grading Rubric
Continue to Next Page
For Case Study -Scenario 3
Case Study – Scenario 3
Business Defamation
[Common Law]
Fact Pattern:
Your company, a regional electronics retailer, is accused in a viral online post
of selling counterfeit smartphones. The post, made by “Rocky H,” a recently
terminated employee, alleges that the company knowingly stocks counterfeit
products and engages in deceptive sales practices. Although the allegations
are false, the post gains traction, leading to a 20% sales decline in two
weeks.
Your investigation reveals that Rocky H was fired for stealing store inventory.
The company’s internal records show all products were purchased from
verified suppliers. However, Rocky H has contacted a local journalist, who is
preparing a story based on his allegations.
You must assess the legal and business risks of pursuing a defamation
lawsuit against Rocky H and possibly the journalist and her publisher if they
publish the story.
Can you prove the employee acted with actual malice, especially if the
journalist publishes a story before the suit is filed? Do you need actual
malice?
Additionally, consider the costs of litigation versus the potential reputational
damage to your company resulting from a public trial.
Your legal team also suggests alternative measures, such as issuing a public
rebuttal and requesting retraction of the defamatory statements.
Overall – what are the legal issues and options and related ethical
implications?
Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
The following guidance will help you develop your analysis of this case study
for the elements outlined in the Assignment.
Evaluate law and legal risk (CO-1, LO-1.2, LO-1.5):
o What tort principles apply?
o What are the defamation elements that apply in this case (including
the issue of actual malice)?
o What are the legal risks of pursuing a defamation lawsuit?
o Consider both Rocky H and the journalist’s publications separately.
o Does the social medial viral aspect of the story affect the company’s
analysis?
Integrate Legal Compliance and Ethics (CO-5, LO-5.1, LO-5.2):
o What ethical considerations arise in balancing the company’s
reputation with the risks of public litigation?
o Should the company focus on repairing its reputation rather than
pursuing legal action?
Recommend a Resolution (CO-5, LO-5.3):
o What strategies can the company use to mitigate reputational damage?
o Would issuing a public statement or seeking a retraction be more effective than
filing a lawsuit?
Research:
o Lingwall course text – Week 5 reading/torts
o Weiss course text for ethics guidance
o At least one court case
o See Week 5 Lesson
See Assignment for PPT help videos and Grading Rubric.
– BUSN623 Week 6 Assignment
– Case Studies Selection
– Case Study – Scenario 1
– Slip and Fall on Business Premises
– Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
– Research:
– Case Study – Scenario 2
– Manufacturing Defect & Warning Label Accuracy
– Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
– Research:
– Case Study – Scenario 3
– Business Defamation
– Research:
**ARTICLE_FEDERALTORTLIABILITYAFTEREGBERTV.BOULE_THECASEFORRESTORINGTHEOFFICERSUITATC.PDF**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/article-federaltortliabilityafteregbertv-boule-thecaseforrestoringtheofficersuitatc-pdf-10495795)
**Conflicts_of_interest_in_clini.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/conflicts-of-interest-in-clini-pdf-10495785)
**Minturn-v-Monradannotated.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/minturn-v-monradannotated-pdf-10495805)
**Minturn-v-Monradannotated.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/minturn-v-monradannotated-pdf-10495803)
**DISCUSSIONElectronic_Health_Records_PatETHICAL.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/discussionelectronic-health-records-patethical-pdf-10495799)
**DISCUSSIONEBSCO-FullText-02_09_2026.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/discussionebsco-fulltext-02-09-2026-pdf-10495797)
**WEEK6PPtDISCUSSION.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week6pptdiscussion-docx-10495783)
**THESUPREMECOURT2024TERM_LEADINGCASE_II.FederalStatutesandRegulation_FederalTortClaims.PDF**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/thesupremecourt2024term-leadingcase-ii-federalstatutesandregulation-federaltortclaims-pdf-10495789)
**EBSCO-FullText-02_09_2026.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/ebsco-fulltext-02-09-2026-pdf-10495801)
**WHEN_TORT_FALLS_SHORT_CRISIS.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/when-tort-falls-short-crisis-pdf-10495809)
**Artificial_Intelligence_and_To.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/artificial-intelligence-and-to-pdf-10495787)
**Extraordinary_Tort_Law_Eval.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/extraordinary-tort-law-eval-pdf-10495791)
**Algorithms_and_the_Privacy_Tor.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/algorithms-and-the-privacy-tor-pdf-10495793)
**Algorithms_and_the_Privacy_Tor.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/algorithms-and-the-privacy-tor-pdf-10495793)
**## Week6AssignmentCaseStudiesoptionsAttachmentBUSN623.pdf**
BUSN623 Week 6 Assignment
Case Studies Selection
The following three Case Studies are hypothetical simulations related to
business tort situations. Choose ONE of these to complete your Week 6
Assignment. References to support your analysis and conclusion for
recommendations should be drawn from your research using relevant
Course Learning Materials and additional research from other credible
sources. The Assignment directs sources that must be used as well as your
own research.
Guiding questions are provided with each Case Study to assist you. These
questions are NOT meant to be answered as a sequence or a “list” in your
PPT. These are provided to assist your analysis to prepare your ORIGINAL
presentation about the case study you select. Follow the directions in the
Main Prompt of the Assignment along with the Case Study to organize a
cohesive PPT presentation.
Case Study – Scenario 1
Slip and Fall on Business Premises
[Common Law Tort Applies]
Fact Pattern:
Floria Fortune, a 45-year-old customer, visits a popular café owned by your
company. While walking to her table, she slips on a wet tile floor, falls, and
fractures her wrist. The café’s own policy requires "Caution: Wet Floor" signs
after cleaning, but on this occasion, the sign was missing due to an oversight
by a new employee.
Security footage reveals Jane was distracted by her phone while walking at
the time of the fall and therefore may not have noticed the visibly damp floor.
Jane files a lawsuit against the company alleging negligence, seeking
$10,000 in medical expenses and $25,000 for pain and suffering.
What is the company’s liability?
The café’s insurance company raises the possibility of arguing comparative
negligence as a mitigating defense, because of Jane’s distraction on her
phone. Is that a viable defense?
The case also raises proximate cause questions: was the café’s failure to
display the sign the sole cause of her injuries? Was the sign required?
Evaluate the café’s legal risks illustrated by the case study including ethical
implications of blaming a customer. Recommend a legal and ethical
resolution.
Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
The following guidance will help you develop your analysis of this case study
for the elements outlined in the Assignment.
Evaluate law & legal risk (CO-1, LO-1.2, LO-1.5):
o What tort principles apply?
o What are the primary legal risks under tort law associated with
this incident?
o How does the principle of proximate cause apply to the café’s
liability?
o What elements of negligence are present in this case? Was the
café’s failure to display the "Wet Floor” a breach of duty?
o How might the concept of comparative negligence influence the
outcome of the case? Is the insurance company’s suggestion
something the company should consider?
o What ethical considerations arise from potentially blaming the
customer for the accident?
o How should the café balance legal defenses with maintaining
customer trust and goodwill?
Recommend a resolution (CO-5, LO-5.3):
o Recommend a resolution for this case to minimize legal liability, align
with ethical standards, and action going forward for the company
from lesson learned from this event.
Research:
o Lingwall course text – Week 5 reading/torts
o Weiss course text for ethics guidance
o At least one court case
o See Week 5 Lesson
See Assignment for PPT help videos and Grading Rubric
Continue to Next Page
For Case Study- Scenario 2
Case Study – Scenario 2
Manufacturing Defect & Warning Label Accuracy
[Product Liability Tort]
Fact Pattern:
Your company, a mid-sized appliance manufacturer, launched a best-selling
blender. However, complaints have arisen about the blender’s blade
assembly detaching during use, causing injuries.
Henry Halloran, a customer, files a product liability claim against your
company after the blender blade broke during operation, resulting in his
suffering severe hand lacerations that required surgery.
An internal review identifies a defect in the supplier-provided blades, but the
issue was flagged during your company’s quality control, and the units were
shipped anyway due to tight production deadlines. Complicating matters,
the blender’s user manual did not include a specific warning about checking
the blade assembly for looseness before use.
Henry seeks $500,000 in damages, including medical costs, lost wages, pain
& suffering, and punitive damages. Meanwhile, a consumer advocacy group
is pushing for a recall, which could cost the company millions.
Consider the legal and ethical implications of the company’s failure to act on
quality control warnings and whether the lack of a warning label exacerbates
liability. Also consider the question of recall. What are your
recommendations?
Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
The following guidance will help you develop your analysis of this case study
for the elements outlined in the Assignment.
Evaluate legal risk & tort law principles (CO-1, LO-1.2, LO-1.5):
o What tort law principles apply?
o What legal risks does the company face from the defective blade
assembly?
o How does the failure to act on quality control warnings impact legal
liability? Ethics?
o Could the absence of a specific warning label increase the company’s
exposure to litigation or damages?
o On what basis might punitive damages be awarded? What factors in
this case could influence this decision?
Integrate Legal Compliance and Ethics (CO-5, LO-5.1, LO-5.2):
o What ethical obligations does the company have to its customers in
light of the defect?
o How should the company address the consumer advocacy group’s
concerns?
Recommend a Resolution (CO-5, LO-5.3) — consider:
o Should the company initiate a recall? Why or why not?
o What steps can the company take to rebuild customer trust while
managing financial risk?
o Should the company be taking other inhouse steps going forward?
o What should be the approach to this lawsuit?
o Recommend a resolution for this case to minimize legal liability, align
with ethical standards, and action going forward for the company
from lesson learned from this event.
Research:
o Lingwall course text – Week 5 reading/torts
o Weiss course text for ethics guidance
o At least one court case
o See Week 5 Lesson
See Assignment for PPT help videos and Grading Rubric
Continue to Next Page
For Case Study -Scenario 3
Case Study – Scenario 3
Business Defamation
[Common Law]
Fact Pattern:
Your company, a regional electronics retailer, is accused in a viral online post
of selling counterfeit smartphones. The post, made by “Rocky H,” a recently
terminated employee, alleges that the company knowingly stocks counterfeit
products and engages in deceptive sales practices. Although the allegations
are false, the post gains traction, leading to a 20% sales decline in two
weeks.
Your investigation reveals that Rocky H was fired for stealing store inventory.
The company’s internal records show all products were purchased from
verified suppliers. However, Rocky H has contacted a local journalist, who is
preparing a story based on his allegations.
You must assess the legal and business risks of pursuing a defamation
lawsuit against Rocky H and possibly the journalist and her publisher if they
publish the story.
Can you prove the employee acted with actual malice, especially if the
journalist publishes a story before the suit is filed? Do you need actual
malice?
Additionally, consider the costs of litigation versus the potential reputational
damage to your company resulting from a public trial.
Your legal team also suggests alternative measures, such as issuing a public
rebuttal and requesting retraction of the defamatory statements.
Overall – what are the legal issues and options and related ethical
implications?
Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
The following guidance will help you develop your analysis of this case study
for the elements outlined in the Assignment.
Evaluate law and legal risk (CO-1, LO-1.2, LO-1.5):
o What tort principles apply?
o What are the defamation elements that apply in this case (including
the issue of actual malice)?
o What are the legal risks of pursuing a defamation lawsuit?
o Consider both Rocky H and the journalist’s publications separately.
o Does the social medial viral aspect of the story affect the company’s
analysis?
Integrate Legal Compliance and Ethics (CO-5, LO-5.1, LO-5.2):
o What ethical considerations arise in balancing the company’s
reputation with the risks of public litigation?
o Should the company focus on repairing its reputation rather than
pursuing legal action?
Recommend a Resolution (CO-5, LO-5.3):
o What strategies can the company use to mitigate reputational damage?
o Would issuing a public statement or seeking a retraction be more effective than
filing a lawsuit?
Research:
o Lingwall course text – Week 5 reading/torts
o Weiss course text for ethics guidance
o At least one court case
o See Week 5 Lesson
See Assignment for PPT help videos and Grading Rubric.
– BUSN623 Week 6 Assignment
– Case Studies Selection
– Case Study – Scenario 1
– Slip and Fall on Business Premises
– Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
– Research:
– Case Study – Scenario 2
– Manufacturing Defect & Warning Label Accuracy
– Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
– Research:
– Case Study – Scenario 3
– Business Defamation
– Research:
**ARTICLE_FEDERALTORTLIABILITYAFTEREGBERTV.BOULE_THECASEFORRESTORINGTHEOFFICERSUITATC.PDF**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/article-federaltortliabilityafteregbertv-boule-thecaseforrestoringtheofficersuitatc-pdf-10495795)
**Conflicts_of_interest_in_clini.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/conflicts-of-interest-in-clini-pdf-10495785)
**Minturn-v-Monradannotated.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/minturn-v-monradannotated-pdf-10495805)
**Minturn-v-Monradannotated.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/minturn-v-monradannotated-pdf-10495803)
**DISCUSSIONElectronic_Health_Records_PatETHICAL.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/discussionelectronic-health-records-patethical-pdf-10495799)
**DISCUSSIONEBSCO-FullText-02_09_2026.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/discussionebsco-fulltext-02-09-2026-pdf-10495797)
**WEEK6PPtDISCUSSION.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week6pptdiscussion-docx-10495783)
**THESUPREMECOURT2024TERM_LEADINGCASE_II.FederalStatutesandRegulation_FederalTortClaims.PDF**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/thesupremecourt2024term-leadingcase-ii-federalstatutesandregulation-federaltortclaims-pdf-10495789)
**EBSCO-FullText-02_09_2026.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/ebsco-fulltext-02-09-2026-pdf-10495801)
**WHEN_TORT_FALLS_SHORT_CRISIS.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/when-tort-falls-short-crisis-pdf-10495809)
**Artificial_Intelligence_and_To.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/artificial-intelligence-and-to-pdf-10495787)
**Extraordinary_Tort_Law_Eval.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/extraordinary-tort-law-eval-pdf-10495791)
**Algorithms_and_the_Privacy_Tor.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/algorithms-and-the-privacy-tor-pdf-10495793)
**## Week6AssignmentCaseStudiesoptionsAttachmentBUSN623.pdf**
BUSN623 Week 6 Assignment
Case Studies Selection
The following three Case Studies are hypothetical simulations related to
business tort situations. Choose ONE of these to complete your Week 6
Assignment. References to support your analysis and conclusion for
recommendations should be drawn from your research using relevant
Course Learning Materials and additional research from other credible
sources. The Assignment directs sources that must be used as well as your
own research.
Guiding questions are provided with each Case Study to assist you. These
questions are NOT meant to be answered as a sequence or a “list” in your
PPT. These are provided to assist your analysis to prepare your ORIGINAL
presentation about the case study you select. Follow the directions in the
Main Prompt of the Assignment along with the Case Study to organize a
cohesive PPT presentation.
Case Study – Scenario 1
Slip and Fall on Business Premises
[Common Law Tort Applies]
Fact Pattern:
Floria Fortune, a 45-year-old customer, visits a popular café owned by your
company. While walking to her table, she slips on a wet tile floor, falls, and
fractures her wrist. The café’s own policy requires "Caution: Wet Floor" signs
after cleaning, but on this occasion, the sign was missing due to an oversight
by a new employee.
Security footage reveals Jane was distracted by her phone while walking at
the time of the fall and therefore may not have noticed the visibly damp floor.
Jane files a lawsuit against the company alleging negligence, seeking
$10,000 in medical expenses and $25,000 for pain and suffering.
What is the company’s liability?
The café’s insurance company raises the possibility of arguing comparative
negligence as a mitigating defense, because of Jane’s distraction on her
phone. Is that a viable defense?
The case also raises proximate cause questions: was the café’s failure to
display the sign the sole cause of her injuries? Was the sign required?
Evaluate the café’s legal risks illustrated by the case study including ethical
implications of blaming a customer. Recommend a legal and ethical
resolution.
Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
The following guidance will help you develop your analysis of this case study
for the elements outlined in the Assignment.
Evaluate law & legal risk (CO-1, LO-1.2, LO-1.5):
o What tort principles apply?
o What are the primary legal risks under tort law associated with
this incident?
o How does the principle of proximate cause apply to the café’s
liability?
o What elements of negligence are present in this case? Was the
café’s failure to display the "Wet Floor” a breach of duty?
o How might the concept of comparative negligence influence the
outcome of the case? Is the insurance company’s suggestion
something the company should consider?
o What ethical considerations arise from potentially blaming the
customer for the accident?
o How should the café balance legal defenses with maintaining
customer trust and goodwill?
Recommend a resolution (CO-5, LO-5.3):
o Recommend a resolution for this case to minimize legal liability, align
with ethical standards, and action going forward for the company
from lesson learned from this event.
Research:
o Lingwall course text – Week 5 reading/torts
o Weiss course text for ethics guidance
o At least one court case
o See Week 5 Lesson
See Assignment for PPT help videos and Grading Rubric
Continue to Next Page
For Case Study- Scenario 2
Case Study – Scenario 2
Manufacturing Defect & Warning Label Accuracy
[Product Liability Tort]
Fact Pattern:
Your company, a mid-sized appliance manufacturer, launched a best-selling
blender. However, complaints have arisen about the blender’s blade
assembly detaching during use, causing injuries.
Henry Halloran, a customer, files a product liability claim against your
company after the blender blade broke during operation, resulting in his
suffering severe hand lacerations that required surgery.
An internal review identifies a defect in the supplier-provided blades, but the
issue was flagged during your company’s quality control, and the units were
shipped anyway due to tight production deadlines. Complicating matters,
the blender’s user manual did not include a specific warning about checking
the blade assembly for looseness before use.
Henry seeks $500,000 in damages, including medical costs, lost wages, pain
& suffering, and punitive damages. Meanwhile, a consumer advocacy group
is pushing for a recall, which could cost the company millions.
Consider the legal and ethical implications of the company’s failure to act on
quality control warnings and whether the lack of a warning label exacerbates
liability. Also consider the question of recall. What are your
recommendations?
Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
The following guidance will help you develop your analysis of this case study
for the elements outlined in the Assignment.
Evaluate legal risk & tort law principles (CO-1, LO-1.2, LO-1.5):
o What tort law principles apply?
o What legal risks does the company face from the defective blade
assembly?
o How does the failure to act on quality control warnings impact legal
liability? Ethics?
o Could the absence of a specific warning label increase the company’s
exposure to litigation or damages?
o On what basis might punitive damages be awarded? What factors in
this case could influence this decision?
Integrate Legal Compliance and Ethics (CO-5, LO-5.1, LO-5.2):
o What ethical obligations does the company have to its customers in
light of the defect?
o How should the company address the consumer advocacy group’s
concerns?
Recommend a Resolution (CO-5, LO-5.3) — consider:
o Should the company initiate a recall? Why or why not?
o What steps can the company take to rebuild customer trust while
managing financial risk?
o Should the company be taking other inhouse steps going forward?
o What should be the approach to this lawsuit?
o Recommend a resolution for this case to minimize legal liability, align
with ethical standards, and action going forward for the company
from lesson learned from this event.
Research:
o Lingwall course text – Week 5 reading/torts
o Weiss course text for ethics guidance
o At least one court case
o See Week 5 Lesson
See Assignment for PPT help videos and Grading Rubric
Continue to Next Page
For Case Study -Scenario 3
Case Study – Scenario 3
Business Defamation
[Common Law]
Fact Pattern:
Your company, a regional electronics retailer, is accused in a viral online post
of selling counterfeit smartphones. The post, made by “Rocky H,” a recently
terminated employee, alleges that the company knowingly stocks counterfeit
products and engages in deceptive sales practices. Although the allegations
are false, the post gains traction, leading to a 20% sales decline in two
weeks.
Your investigation reveals that Rocky H was fired for stealing store inventory.
The company’s internal records show all products were purchased from
verified suppliers. However, Rocky H has contacted a local journalist, who is
preparing a story based on his allegations.
You must assess the legal and business risks of pursuing a defamation
lawsuit against Rocky H and possibly the journalist and her publisher if they
publish the story.
Can you prove the employee acted with actual malice, especially if the
journalist publishes a story before the suit is filed? Do you need actual
malice?
Additionally, consider the costs of litigation versus the potential reputational
damage to your company resulting from a public trial.
Your legal team also suggests alternative measures, such as issuing a public
rebuttal and requesting retraction of the defamatory statements.
Overall – what are the legal issues and options and related ethical
implications?
Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
The following guidance will help you develop your analysis of this case study
for the elements outlined in the Assignment.
Evaluate law and legal risk (CO-1, LO-1.2, LO-1.5):
o What tort principles apply?
o What are the defamation elements that apply in this case (including
the issue of actual malice)?
o What are the legal risks of pursuing a defamation lawsuit?
o Consider both Rocky H and the journalist’s publications separately.
o Does the social medial viral aspect of the story affect the company’s
analysis?
Integrate Legal Compliance and Ethics (CO-5, LO-5.1, LO-5.2):
o What ethical considerations arise in balancing the company’s
reputation with the risks of public litigation?
o Should the company focus on repairing its reputation rather than
pursuing legal action?
Recommend a Resolution (CO-5, LO-5.3):
o What strategies can the company use to mitigate reputational damage?
o Would issuing a public statement or seeking a retraction be more effective than
filing a lawsuit?
Research:
o Lingwall course text – Week 5 reading/torts
o Weiss course text for ethics guidance
o At least one court case
o See Week 5 Lesson
See Assignment for PPT help videos and Grading Rubric.
– BUSN623 Week 6 Assignment
– Case Studies Selection
– Case Study – Scenario 1
– Slip and Fall on Business Premises
– Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
– Research:
– Case Study – Scenario 2
– Manufacturing Defect & Warning Label Accuracy
– Questions to incorporate into your presentation:
– Research:
– Case Study – Scenario 3
– Business Defamation
– Research:
**ARTICLE_FEDERALTORTLIABILITYAFTEREGBERTV.BOULE_THECASEFORRESTORINGTHEOFFICERSUITATC.PDF**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/article-federaltortliabilityafteregbertv-boule-thecaseforrestoringtheofficersuitatc-pdf-10495795)
**Conflicts_of_interest_in_clini.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/conflicts-of-interest-in-clini-pdf-10495785)
**Minturn-v-Monradannotated.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/minturn-v-monradannotated-pdf-10495805)
**Minturn-v-Monradannotated.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/minturn-v-monradannotated-pdf-10495803)
**DISCUSSIONElectronic_Health_Records_PatETHICAL.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/discussionelectronic-health-records-patethical-pdf-10495799)
**DISCUSSIONEBSCO-FullText-02_09_2026.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/discussionebsco-fulltext-02-09-2026-pdf-10495797)
**WEEK6PPtDISCUSSION.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week6pptdiscussion-docx-10495783)
**THESUPREMECOURT2024TERM_LEADINGCASE_II.FederalStatutesandRegulation_FederalTortClaims.PDF**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/thesupremecourt2024term-leadingcase-ii-federalstatutesandregulation-federaltortclaims-pdf-10495789)
**EBSCO-FullText-02_09_2026.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/ebsco-fulltext-02-09-2026-pdf-10495801)
**WHEN_TORT_FALLS_SHORT_CRISIS.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/when-tort-falls-short-crisis-pdf-10495809)
**Artificial_Intelligence_and_To.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/artificial-intelligence-and-to-pdf-10495787)
**Extraordinary_Tort_Law_Eval.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/extraordinary-tort-law-eval-pdf-10495791)
**Algorithms_and_the_Privacy_Tor.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/algorithms-and-the-privacy-tor-pdf-10495793)