The person B fed a powdered infant formula to her daughter which was manufactured by the company N. She claimed that one of the cans of the formula was contaminated with bacteria which caused severe injury to her daughter. She filed a case against the company N in Minnessota. The company demanded for a change of venue as the harm occurred in South Carolina and also, the person B is a resident there and has given birth to her daughter in that state iteself. To Explain: The possibilty of the case to be transferred to South Carolina.

Question

Answer the question: Ahmed is an employee of Bristol Manufacturing Company. Bristol manufactures plastics, which creates large amounts of toxic waste that must then be disposed of. Ahmed is responsible for making sure this toxic waste is properly disposed of. To cut costs, Ahmed decides to divert the liquid waste into a local stream, instead of properly disposing of it. This is a direct violation of the Clean Water Act, a national law that protects the United States’ waterways. Sanford is the director of the division in which Ahmed works and knows that Ahmed is doing this. When the authorities discover Ahmed’s unlawful actions, can Bristol be held criminally liable? a) Bristol cannot be held criminally liable, even if Sanford knew of Ahmed’s actions. b)Bristol can be held criminally responsible if Sanford knew of Ahmed’s criminal actions.

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 2, Problem 2BCP

Summary Introduction

Case Summary: The person B fed a powdered infant formula to her daughter which was manufactured by the company N. She claimed that one of the cans of the formula was contaminated with bacteria which caused severe injury to her daughter. She filed a case against the company N in Minnessota. The company demanded for a change of venue as the harm occurred in South Carolina and also, the person B is a resident there and has given birth to her daughter in that state iteself.

To Explain: The possibilty of the case to be transferred to South Carolina.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Answer the question: Ahmed is an employee of Bristol Manufacturing Company. Bristol manufactures plastics, which creates large amounts of toxic waste that must then be disposed of. Ahmed is responsible for making sure this toxic waste is properly disposed of. To cut costs, Ahmed decides to divert the liquid waste into a local stream, instead of properly disposing of it. This is a direct violation of the Clean Water Act, a national law that protects the United States’ waterways. Sanford is the director of the division in which Ahmed works and knows that Ahmed is doing this. When the authorities discover Ahmed’s unlawful actions, can Bristol be held criminally liable? a) Bristol cannot be held criminally liable, even if Sanford knew of Ahmed’s actions. b)Bristol can be held criminally responsible if Sanford knew of Ahmed’s criminal actions.

Elizabeth is out with her friends at a bar one night. The bartender notices someone slip a pill into Elizabeth’s drink. If Elizabeth commits a crime later that night, the bartender can best testify on her behalf. Which defense most likely applies to this situation? (Whether or not the defense will work is not relevant.) A. Duress B. Involuntary Intoxication C. Mistake of Fact

Patrick Clawson was described by reporter Karen Branch-Brioso in a newspaper story as a “1970s era St. Louis journalist turned private eye turned FBI informant.” The story was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The fact that he had been characterized as an informant bothered Clawson, who saw it as damaging to his reputation. Accordingly, he brought a libel case against the Post-Dispatch. Recall that to be libelous, a statement must be false and “hold the victim up to ridicule, contempt, or hatred.” Clawson would have preferred the term whistleblower rather than informant because that term commands more respect. Why is the use of the term informant to describe Clawson not libelous?