Author Topic: Opening Arguments #TTTBE  (Read 31069 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline HighPockets

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2150
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #30 on: March 23, 2018, 08:39:08 AM »
Thanks A lot, EL. The show still hadn't shown up in my RSS feed by last night. Nice transcription too!

(click to show/hide)
Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't.

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11846
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2018, 08:56:29 AM »
This question is going to hinge on whether or not the employee is obligated to mitigate damages or not.  Since we are not told about any specific agreement with respect to damages in the question, we need to just assume that there are none.

Therefore,

(click to show/hide)

I just hope there aren't any special weird rules around teachers or summer jobs.



#non-belief denialist

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9079
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2018, 09:09:20 AM »
Why would the injured party have any obligation to mitigate the damages?  I mean, I could see an obligation to report any mitigation to the damages, but I don't get why they should have to work to make it easier for the camp to uphold their agreement. Also, what defines the timeframe for any mitigating to occur before the teacher attempts to collect what they're owed?

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7634
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2018, 10:07:43 AM »
purchasing a widget.  If I recall correctly, in that case the injured seller, who subsequently sold the item for a lower price, was entitled to the difference in selling price plus the reasonable cost of selling it (restocking, etc.).  The premise was that the law seeks to make the injured party whole, not to leave them better off than if they had not been injured.  Without knowledge of any specific language in the contract regarding penalties, I’m going to go with B.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11766
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2018, 11:32:14 AM »
I think the answer ic C.  There was a previous question like this, and my fuzzy memory says the claim is restricted to the terms in the contract, with certain caveats.  And I don't think the two extraneous items were amongst those caveats.

Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11846
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2018, 12:32:11 PM »
Why would the injured party have any obligation to mitigate the damages?  I mean, I could see an obligation to report any mitigation to the damages, but I don't get why they should have to work to make it easier for the camp to uphold their agreement. Also, what defines the timeframe for any mitigating to occur before the teacher attempts to collect what they're owed?

I think under the law (unless there's a specific exception) you are required to mitigate damages always.

I'm getting a very horrible faint memory about something special with employment law that would result in you receiving full pay, but I'm not sure that applies here because being a contract employee is a different thing.

#non-belief denialist

Offline Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2709
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #36 on: March 23, 2018, 12:51:40 PM »
I'm going to go ahead and say...

(click to show/hide)
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Offline Friendly Angel

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4430
  • Post count reset to zero in both forum apocalypses
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2018, 12:54:30 PM »

I think under the law (unless there's a specific exception) you are required to mitigate damages always.

Yeah.

(click to show/hide)
  Loss of wages plus travel expenses... that's the damage caused by the breach.
Amend and resubmit.

Offline Fast Eddie B

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3277
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2018, 07:10:42 PM »
Not my area, but I think it might be “C”.

The employer welched on the contract, and so I think they would owe the full amount, but nothing beyond that.

But I’m far from sure.

Offline Sawyer

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2018, 10:17:12 AM »
Not worth a "Andrew was Wrong" segment, but I noticed in the last episode he identified the wrong book in Caro's Lyndon Johnson series.  The 2nd book in the series, Means of Ascent is the one that covers the Senate race with Coke Stevenson.

Clearly an elaborate ploy to get me to join the Facebook group.

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7634
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #40 on: March 29, 2018, 10:36:20 AM »
Well, the answer was B.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11766
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2018, 12:42:00 PM »
Well, the answer was B.

Yes - all the make whole folks were right.  It explains a great deal.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9079
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2018, 06:02:48 AM »
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A driver returning home from a long work shift at a factory fell asleep at the wheel and lost control of his car.  As a result, his car collided with a police car being driven by an officer who was returning to the station after responding to an emergency.  The officer was injured in the accident and later sued the driver in negligence for her injuries.  The driver has moved for summary judgement, arguing that the common law firefighter's rule bars the suit.  Should the court grant the motion?

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9079
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2018, 06:16:35 AM »
I know absolutely nothing about the common law firefighter's rule, so I'm going to divide my answer into a section before I look it up and a section after look into it just enough to get the jist.

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 06:21:52 AM by Eternally Learning »

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7634
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2018, 10:11:52 AM »
A) No, because the firefighter’s rule does not apply to police officers.
B) No, because the police officer’s injuries were not related to any special dangers of her job.
C) Yes, because the accident would not have happened but for the emergency.
D) Yes, because the police officer was injured on the job.

I’m going to go with B, on the assumption that the firefighter’s rule is about assumption of risk.

(click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: March 30, 2018, 10:40:38 AM by The Latinist »
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell