State and Federal Law Assignment

State and Federal Law Assignment

Corporate Product Liability

The Bullock vs. Phillip Morris case examined Phillip Morris’ liability to injuries sustained by Betty Bullock from misrepresentation of facts about cigarette smoking and its effects. The legal issue was the negligence and intentionality of Phillip Morris’ act of withholding facts about cigarette use. The court found that Phillip Morris was liable and awarded damages worth more than twenty-eight million dollars. I agree with the court’s ruling because the facts of the case indicated that the company lied about its knowledge of the effects of cigarettes (Solberg & Hosack, 2017). This is within the rights of negligence and is punishable because the firm had control of the information and chose to withhold it for profit.

The school shootings and strict liability cases examined the liability of the entertainment companies to damages due to the murders committed by students purported to have been influenced by movies and video games they produced. The legal issue was the firms’ liability for actions produced by agents purported to be influenced by their fictitious recreations of violent occurrences. The court held that the firms were not liable because their productions were not tangible products and that the shooters’ intentional acts were the superseding causes for the deaths. I agree with the ruling because it refuses to blame production firms for occurrences they cannot control.

Reference

Solberg, J. J., & Hosack, K. A. (2017). Recent Trends In Punitive Damages Jurisprudence: Are Excessive Awards Galloping Away, Or Are Courts Acting In Good Faith To Rein Them In? Southern Law Journal, 27(1), 113-132.

State and Federal Government Regulations

State and federal courts can have concurrent jurisdiction over a breach of contract case between parties from different states with a contested amount of over seventy-five thousand dollars. This type of case is typically heard in state court. However, the differing citizenship of the involved parties gives federal court subject matter jurisdiction over the case (Jacobson, 2017). As such, either party can apply to have the case removed to a different court pending determination by the hearing judge.

Reference

Jacobson, S. (2017). Dual Sovereignty Is Out, Time for Concurrent Jurisdiction to Shine. Wm. & Mary Environmental. Law & Policy Rev., 42, 627.

Ethics in Business

As business executives, the duty to the shareholders and the company may put us in a position where we act on grey areas of law even with moral conflicts to perform our duty to the company and our shareholders. Choosing to take charge of a company places the business executive at a crossroads every time. Business executives have a duty to the shareholders’ that requires them to put the company’s interest before their own (Hill et al., 2019). When unable to do so, the ethical thing is to resign from the position and let someone else take responsibility for the company.

It is easy to find ways to meet both your moral obligations and the shareholder’s needs. However, the difficulty comes when you must choose between one and the other. If you cannot complete the task as required, it is only fair that you give the shareholders a chance to benefit rather than obstruct their gain based on personal moral grounds. Business executives must always understand this requirement in their roles.

Reference

Hill, C., McDonnell, B., & Stenz, A. (2019). Bad Agent, Good Citizen? Fordham L. Rev., 88, 1631.

Corporate Freedom of Speech Religion

I agree with the court’s decision that corporations have the same degree of freedom of speech and religion as individuals because it provides a legal way to track lobbyist activity. If the court were to rule against lobbyism, most of it would be hidden from the law. In this case, it would be difficult to track, which would encourage unethical or criminal use of the lobbyist route for corporate gain (Pollman, 2021). This will positively impact society as it will challenge companies to be open about their lobbyist activities and reduce actions that may present them badly to the public.

The huge sums of money corporations can use to support or oppose candidates or causes concern me because it can be easily used for nefarious purposes. In my view, this ruling will impact where employees work as certain individuals will refuse to work for companies that lobby for or against specific issues that may be contrary t their beliefs or preferences. If this number is sufficiently high, it may cause companies to reconsider their lobbyist efforts to attract top talent and remain competitive.

Reference

Pollman, E. (2021). Corporate Personhood and Limited Sovereignty. U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper, (21-22).