Review the Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke case (you can find it linked in the course or access it on Google Scholar by selecting case law beneath the search box, then typing 277 N.W.2d 11 in the search box) and then thoughtfully respond to the BUS204 Case Study Questions Wk 3.docx Be sure to contact your instructor if you have any questions or concerns. Submit work to Drop Box 3.1 by the designated due date. mente 1. When this lawsuit was originally filed, who was the plaintiff, and what role did the plaintiff play in the events leading to this lawsuit? 2. When this lawsuit was originally filed, who were the defendants, and what role did they play in the events leading up to this lawsuit? 3. Did the motel allege a tort or a crime against the person who caused the fire? 4. A party cannot sue another party simply because he is unhappy. Rather, he must allege a cause of action recognized in the law. What cause of action did the hotel allege against the person who caused the fire? (Make sure to look for the name of the cause of action, don't merely give a description of what the motel alleged he did wrong.) 5. Why did the plaintiff argue the restaurant company is liable? Identify the specific legal theory that applies. 6. The Edgewater Motel was found 40% responsible for the fire because of their own negligence. What tort law theory applied to determine the motel was 40% responsible? 7. What happens if a plaintiff is found partially responsible for its own damages? You will need to refer to the reading material and lecture content to answer this question-this is not discussed in the case. 8. Why did Minnesota Supreme Court determine that the motel was partially responsible for the fire? How could the motel have avoided being found responsible for the fire? 9. What is the standard for holding an employer liable for its employees' conduct? 10. What factors did this court list to help determine if an employer should be liable for an employee's conduct? 11. Why did the court determine Gatzke's employer was responsible for Gatzke's conduct despite the fact that he was not at his employer's premises at the time of these events, and his conduct did not take place during normal operating hours for any of his employer's restaurants