Critical Thinking case for Test #3 - Business Ethics

Thompson, a laborer for Seaman Plumbing Company, received serious injuries when he was buried alive while trying to connect the sewage line of Seafood Haven's restaurant to the city line of Bayou La Batre, Louisiana. It is required by city ordinance and OSHA that deep trenches must be either sloped or braced to prevent cave-ins. Neither was done in this case. Thompson had not reached the cities property yet when the cave-in occurred. However, the city safety inspector named Jim Kirby and the Federal OSHA inspector named Gilford Small were both standing there watching when the cave-in occurred.

Right before the cave-in occurred the "ditch-digger", a large gasoline operated machine with a 6 foot wheel with teeth on it suddenly stopped making a loud "bang." Immediately the loose dirt around Thompson began caving into the ditch he was working in. Thompson has decided to sue for his damages. His attorney found out that the "ditch-digger" machine was brand new but was defective and this is what caused it to stop and is also what caused the loud "bang." It was purchased from Harold's Building Supplies. Harold did not issue any "disclaimers" with the paperwork when it was purchased by Seaman's Plumbing.

Who should Thompson sue in this case? Specify each party and whether you feel they would be liable.This will include Seaman Plumbing Company, the city of Bayou La Batre, their employee named Jim Kirby, the Federal government under OSHA and their employee named Gilford Small, and Harold's Building Supplies. Choosing one of these is not sufficient here.

Your Assignment is: On a separate sheet of paper (with your name on it),

1. Analyze this case in your mind and then state the legal issues to be considered. Specificity is important. You should list them first.

2. Evaluate the legal issues in this case and determine the strengths and weaknesses of the suit by Thompson against (a) the employer, Seaman Plumbing, (b.) the city of Bayou La Batre, (c) city employee, Jim Kirby, (d) the Federal government, (e) the federal employee Gilford Small, and Harold's Building Supplies.. List the strengths and weaknesses you identify.

3. Deduce logical and specific arguments based on the information you have learned in Chapters 6 and 9 of your textbook and what you have learned in this course. (I am looking for verifiable deductions from the material we have covered and not just your opinion). List each of your deductions. You also must cite the source which is the basis for your deduction such as the cases or the writings that are similar which we have covered. You may also seek and cite outsource reputable sources.

4. Infer and state your logical legal conclusions based on your analysis, evaluations, and evidence you have previously stated. This legal conclusion should include (a.) who should win each law suit that you feel would be successful or unsuccessful.