How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Mr. Gregory White Your Own Question

Mr. Gregory White
Mr. Gregory White, Master's Degree
Category: Essays
Satisfied Customers: 5229
Experience:  M.A., M.S. Education / Educational Administration
46856550
Type Your Essays Question Here...
Mr. Gregory White is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Review the Ethics in Action scenario in Chapter 7 of your

Customer Question

Review the Ethics in Action scenario in Chapter 7 of your text.
Write a paper of not more than 1,050 words in which you answer the following questions:
Does an employer have an ethical obligation to take corrective or preventative action when the employer knows, or has reason to know, that the employee poses a danger to others?
Does it matter whether the employer has irrefutable evidence that the employee poses a danger to others or whether the employer has only a reasonable suspicion to that effect?
If an employer has an ethical obligation to take corrective or preventative action, to whom does that obligation extend and what should that obligation entail?
Does the employer owe any ethical obligation to the employee in such situations?
What potential torts are demonstrated in the scenario?
Analyze any potential criminal liability for the employer and the employee.
Cite at least 5 peer-reviewed references.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Essays
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
chapter 7ring evening hours, Hen Horn, a truck driver employed by Ralphs Grocery Co. (Ralphs), was driving in California on Interstate 10 as part of his job duties. Horn stopped his tractor-trailer rig on a large dirt shoulder alongside the highway in order to eat a snack he had brought with him. He regularly stopped for a snack in that spot when driving in the vicinity. The dirt shoulder was part of a somewhat larger dirt area that sat between Interstate 10 and an intersecting highway. Near the spot where Horn parked, California’s Department of Transportation had placed an “Emergency Parking Only” sign. Horn saw the sign from where he parked, approximately 16 feet from the outermost traffic lane of Interstate 10.
That same evening, Adelelmo Cabral was driving home from work alone in his pickup truck on Interstate 10. ***** ***** was driving behind Cabral on that same highway. Perez saw Cabral’s vehicle, which was traveling at 70 to 80 miles per hour, swerve within its lane, then change lanes rapidly, and then pass other vehicles. Cabral’s pickup truck crossed the outermost lane of traffic, left the highway, and traveled parallel to the road along the adjacent dirt until it hit the rear of Horn’s trailer. Perez saw no brake lights or other indications of an attempt on Cabral’s part to slow down before the collision. A toxicology report on Cabral, who died at the scene, was negative. Because there was no evidence of intoxication, suicide, or a mechanical defect in the pickup, it appeared that Cabral either had fallen asleep or had been victimized by an unknown medical condition.
Cabral’s widow, Maria Cabral, sued Ralphs for the allegedly wrongful death of her husband. She contended that Ralphs should be held liable because its employee (Horn) had caused her husband’s death through negligence in stopping for nonemergency reasons on the freeway shoulder. Ralphs responded by denying that Horn was negligent and by asserting that the decedent’s own negligence was the real cause of the accident. A California jury concluded that both Cabral and Horn were negligent and that their respective negligent acts were substantial factors in causing Cabral’s death. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Maria Cabral, but, as required by California law, the trial court reduced the amount of damages awarded by the jury in order to allow for the fact that the decedent’s own negligence had partially accounted for his death. Ralphs appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which reversed the lower court’s decision. The Court of Appeal held that there was no basis for holding Ralphs liable for negligence because neither Ralphs nor Horn owed the decedent a duty of reasonable care to prevent a collision with Horn’s parked-off-the-roadway rig. Maria Cabral appealed to the Supreme Court of California.
Think about the above facts as you study this chapter. Consider the following questions:
•Was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusion that neither Horn nor Ralphs owed a duty to the decedent? What considerations go into a determination of whether a duty to exercise reasonable care exists? How do you think the Supreme Court of California ruled on the duty question?
•In addition to proving the existence of a duty, what other elements did the plaintiff need to prove in order to establish that Ralphs should be held liable for negligence?
•In any event, why would Ralphs even be at risk of liability for negligence? If there was negligence here, wasn’t it Horn’s negligence? Shouldn’t the plaintiff have sued Horn rather than Ralphs?
Page 226
•Even if Horn was negligent and even if Ralphs might otherwise be liable for Horn’s negligence, why wouldn’t the decedent’s own negligence bar the plaintiff from winning this wrongful death case? What if the decedent’s negligence was less of a causation factor than any negligence on the part of Horn and Ralphs? Would that matter in determining the case’s outcome and/or the amount of damages to be awarded? What if the decedent’s negligence was more of a causation factor than any negligence on the part of Horn and Ralphs? Would that matter in determining the case’s outcome and/or the amount of damages to be awarded?
•Although there was no evidence in this case that Horn was an unsafe driver generally, did Ralphs have a legal obligation when it hired Horn to conduct some sort of investigation of his driving skills, history, and background before sending him out on the road? Why or why not? Did Ralphs have any ethical obligations in that regard? If so, what are they, and why? If not, why not?
Expert:  Mr. Gregory White replied 1 year ago.

Hello, my name is Greg.

Is there any other information you can send to see if I can assist on it this for you? If you have any documents you can upload, you can do so to mediafire.com or box.com and share the link here with us.

If I had a model and could provide that as a model (would have to check files to see if I have one), would that be sufficient or are you seeking a fully written new model document?

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Learning Team Assignment: Ethical and Criminal Responsibility PaperPurpose of AssignmentThe purpose of this individual assignment is to have the student evaluate the legal, moral and ethical responsibilities running from an employer to an employee in a business situation involving sexual assault. This assignment will require the student to engage in critical thinking and apply tort elements and concepts to this scenario.Resources Required“Ethics in Action” scenario in Ch. 7 on page 226 of the textbook.Grading GuideContent
70 Percent Met
Partially Met Not Met
Comments:The paper includes a discussion of whether the employer in the scenario has an ethical obligation to take corrective or preventative action when the employer knows, or has reason to know, that the employee poses a danger to others.
The paper includes a discussion of whether or not it matters if the employer has irrefutable evidence that the employee poses a danger or if it only a reasonable suspicion.
The paper includes a discussion based on the assumption that the employer has an ethical obligation to take action regarding to whom that obligation extends and what the obligation involves.
The paper includes a discussion of whether or not the employer owes any ethical obligation to the employee.
The paper includes identification of any potential torts demonstrated in the scenario.
The paper includes an analysis of the potential criminal liability for the employer and the employee.
The paper includes at least 5 peer-reviewed references.
The paper is no more than 1,050 words in length.
Total Available Total Earned
7 #/7
Writing Guidelines
30 Percent Met
Partially Met Not Met
Comments:
The paper—including tables and graphs, headings, title page, and reference page—is consistent with APA formatting guidelines and meets course-level requirements.
Intellectual property is recognized with in-text citations and a reference page.
Paragraph and sentence transitions are present, logical, and maintain the flow throughout the paper.
Sentences are complete, clear, and concise.
Rules of grammar and usage are followed including spelling and punctuation.
Total Available Total Earned
3 #/3
Assignment Total # 10 #/10
Additional comments:
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
seeking a fully written new model document
Expert:  Mr. Gregory White replied 1 year ago.

After going through my resources, I do not have what is necessary to complete at this time.

I am opting out and opening up to the other professionals and messaging a couple who might be able to help.

Someone should be with you shortly.

Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Thank you, ***** ***** can help me the assignment its asking to answer the questions on regards ***** ***** I post Chapter 7 and the bottom the requirements of the assignment.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Hello I am still waiting 24 hours already past
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
hellooooo

Related Essays Questions