Question

Please read the case study from your textbook - Baker v. Fennenam & Brown Properties, LLC and Southern Bells of Indiana, Inc., all d/b/a Taco Bell (pg. 175, Case Study 5 - 15).

1. Do you agree with the court's determination that Taco Bell should provide reasonable assistance to Baker even though Taco Bell was not responsible for his illness? Why or why not?

2. What is the public policy underlying the court's decision?

Answer 1

SOLUTION IS POSTED BELOW.

HOPE IT HELPS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERY PLEASE COMMENT IN THE COMMENT BOX.

A POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM YOUR SIDE WILL BE HELPFUL.

1: YES I AGREE WITH COURTS DETERMINATION BECAUSE:

FIRST TACO BELL DID NOT ACTION WERE NOT ACTING ACCORDING TO INDIANA PUBLIC POLICY.

IT IS THE DUTY OF BUISSNESS OWNER SO THAT TO AID INVITEES IN CASE OF DANGER SO THAT IN CASE ACCIDENT THEY CAN AVOID LIABILITY.MR BAKER WAS A INVITEE HENCE TACO BELL WAS INVITED TO GREATER CARE.

SECOND ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS MR BAKER CLAIMED THAT WHEN HE BECAME UNCONSCIOUS AND FELL INTO LOBBY NONE OF TACO BELL EMPLOYEE HELPED HIM OR CALLED MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

THIRD ISSUE WAS THAT MR BAKER HAD FOUR FRONT TEETH KNOCKED OUT , FETLUNCONCIOUS TWICE, EXPERIENCED CONVULSIONS ,BROKE HIS SEVENTH VERTEBRA OF HIS NECKAND WAS CHOKED ONHIS OWN BLOOD.

FINALLY AFTER GETTING UNCONSCIOUS TWICE WHEN MR BAKER LEFT THE TACO BELL LOBBY HIS FRIEND CONTACTED HIS FIANCE WHO IN TURN TOOK HIM TO HOSPITAL. THIS HAPPENED DUE TO NEGLIGENCE OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE BY STAFF WHEN HE FALL FOR FIRST TIME.

2: PUBLIC POLICY:

A: POLICY STATES THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF OWNER TO AID INIVITES IN DANGER WHILE THEY ARE ON PREMISES. SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS REQUIREMENT OF CARE WHICH IN TURN CAN HELP TO SAV THEM. AND AS THE OWNER IS DERIVING BENEFIT ECONOMICALLY FROM CUSTOMER HENCE THEY HAVE TO ENSURE THERE SAFETY.

B: IT WAS DUTY OF TACO BELL TO TRAIN THERE  EMPLOYEE ABOUT VARIOUS PROTOCOL AND PRACTISES TO HANDLE SUCH BUISNESS RELATED EMERGENCIES,.

C:  THEY BREACHED THE DUTY TO CALL THE MEDICLE ASSISTANCE WITHIN THE REASONALBLE TIME.