$1.$ According to the case, Nicole Moren and her sister Amy Benedetti were partners in JAX Restaurant, and on the day in question, Nicole completed her day shift. How would Nicole and Amy have determined what Nicole's day shift was? If there was an agreement between them, would it have to be in writing, or could it be verbal? Is it a good idea for partners to have a formal partnership agreement, or is a "handshake" enough? Because Nicole and Amy are sisters, do you think it is necessary for them to have a partnership agreement at all? $2.$ The case notes that Nicole returned to the restaurant after learning that Amy needed help. We know from the facts presented that the restaurant served pizza and that Nicole was making pizzas after she returned to the restaurant. Would Nicole even have had to go back to the restaurant? What duty, or duties $($if any$),$ was she attempting to comply with by returning? If she didn't go back to the restaurant, would she have violated any duties that partners owe to each other and to the partnership? $3.$ Nicole's husband said he would pick up their two year old son in $20$ minutes. Was it reasonable for Nicole to return right away to the restaurant, or would it have been reasonable for her to wait the $20$ minutes? What competing interests are vying for Nicole's attention? What do you think you would have done?$4.$ Those of you who have children can empathize, I$\text{'}$m sure, with the statement that Nicole "did not want Remington running around the restaurant;" two year olds tend to get into everything! If any of you have restaurant experience or have worked in a restaurant, you also know how hectic it can get in the kitchen $($especially on busy nights$)$ and how close equipment, supplies, and restaurant workers are to each other. Was it reasonable, under the circumstances, for Nicole to bring her son into the kitchen with her instead of letting him sit $($or run$)$ in the restaurant? Was Nicole guilty of negligence, recklessness $($also known as gross negligence$),$ or intentional tort, or none of those?$5.$ There wouldn't be a case if there weren't some $($alleged$)$ problem, and unfortunately Nicole's son, being a two year old, put his hand into the dough press and suffered permanent injuries. It's noted that Nicole's husband $($Remington$\text{'}$s father$)$ sued the partnership for damages. Whom $($or what$)$ did he really sue $($be sure to think about that for a moment before answering$)?$ Why would he claim negligence but not recklessness and$/$or intentional tort?$6.$ As noted in the case, the partnership then brought a legal action $($a "third$-$party complaint"$)$ against Nicole, claiming that if $"$it was obligated to compensate Remington, the partnership was entitled to indemnity or contribution from $[$Nicole$]$ for her negligence." What is indemnity? Regarding the reference to "the partnership," who $($or what$)$ in reality is making the claim against her? Would the "partnership's" case against her be stronger if it alleged she was guilty of recklessness and$/$or intentional tort? $7.$ Why do you think the judges ruled the way they did in this case? Should a judge allow his or her personal experiences to affect his or her decision in a case? What would you have ruled if you were the judge?