The first thing to note is the admissibility for the case and if the evidence is relevant. The connection of the situation is that students were poisoned and placed in isolation costing millions of dollars. The event of poisoning did take away the students' employment foundation since they can only be employed in non-skilled types of work, such as scraping barnacles off fishing boats with all of their education. The district is reliable for students poisoning because, with evidence, they purchased the mystery meat and with the knowledge that there was Baloney Bacillus. They still went on to deliver the food to the students without taking precautions for the suitable environment of the disease. The employees should not have left the meat at room temperatures or in warmer areas for activeness of bacillus; therefore, making reliability to the entire district. The service director's actions to buy the meat at cheap costs of five cents without looking at the supplier information caused a problem for the whole of the district.
The district has limitations to liability in this case by the scope of duty. Duty is the first element of negligence that they had since it was their obligation to act reasonably to issue information on bacillus and regularly check their meat. The school duty is protection from harm or injury for their students. Each student could receive roughly about ten million United States dollars because the isolations did cost millions of dollars, and their employment opportunities have diminished. There is an act of federal tort with the food poisoning, and the remedy for the damages is compensation to the students wronged. The case fits federal tort with strict liability, intentional tort, and negligence for the school to their students. It is possible to sue Jaguars for the invoice on baloney was listed as to that of the Jaguars. They can sue the Phoney Baloney Company for malicious use of their address without the teams' permission, and for this case, every truth will come out for those who participated.
The Mystery Meat Comes Back Up!
There are legal challenges for freedom of teaching, and the district can limit Emmy's speech by breach of work-related confidence. She destroys the faith of school in classes by using the mystery meat incident as an example of a biology lecture on the topic of food safety. The speech is a personal attack to the school to change the officials of the school and not the meat since bacillus can be dealt with by cooking. Emmy acts unprofessionally by sarcastic use of the incident and insults the school by her involvement in political campaigns to overthrow the current board president rather than coming up with ways for food safety of the school since she is a biology teacher. Additionally, Emmy is in protection by freedom of speech and for her expressions in letters for local paper and participation in rallies. The principle supports her freedom to express ideas without dread of retaliation or legal sanction.
Assuming Ms Millicent Militant is to be employed, the superintendent can use teachers' right contracts. The contract can apply between school districts and teachers with terms on the agreement having mutual consent for the acceptance of Emmy. The contract section law specifically focuses on teaching and education, and the superintendent can have special rules for speeches at school under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Assuming there are no protections by law for Emmy activities, she can be in suspension or termination under disciplinary actions by Gross County Schools. As a penalty, the schools can charge her with unprofessional conduct by becoming more militant with the mystery meat rather than working together with the school to stop the incident. Emmy commits ethical violations such as the public obligation whereby she uses privileges from the institution for personal advantage or gains by inciting the class and club members as a way for the campaign of Mr Crunchy Granola. Student activities should be encouraged to stop or face punishment for disruptiveness since they are under disruptive speech for the school program that costs revenue. The students are part of communications or curriculum whereby the school sponsors; therefore, these activities should stop as it is under general exceptions to First Amendment protection. There is less control for school activities such as the nutrition club because they are essential in expressing ideas as part of the school curriculum.
Outside of formal actions by the school district, Emmy can face legal actions from Pinky Floyd since her actions or speech made her lose the job. As a wrongful termination, Pinky can sue Emmy for misleading her employees as the reason for the meat incident since she wanted her position as a coach; she always thought to be better. Emmy made a false representation and harmed Pinky by reliance on her the description by the district.
Levine, J. R. (2000). The Federal Tort Claims Act: A Proposal for Institutional Reform. Colum. L. Rev., 100, 1538.
Shapiro, M. (2011). Freedom of speech: the Supreme Court and judicial review. Quid Pro Books. Retrieved April 22, 2020, from https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/freedom-of-speech-the-supreme-court-and-judicial-review
Cite this page
District Responsible for Students' Poisoning: Millions in Costs. (2023, May 30). Retrieved from https://proessays.net/essays/district-responsible-for-students-poisoning-millions-in-costs
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- Three Dimensions of Sustainability and Supply Chain in Businesses - Course Work Example
- The Philosophy of Henry Thoreau - Paper Example
- Corporate Social Responsibility Essay Example
- Starbucks and Types of Ownerships Essay
- Essay Example on Achieving Mission Excellence: Recruiting, Training & More!
- Online Auctions: eBay and Beyond: Exploring Popular Sites - Essay Sample
- Paper Example on Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing: Biggest Defense Companies in the World