Critical Legal Thinking Case Study 2
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
Critical Legal Thinking Case Study 2
Description
Before You Start
Carefully review the instructions and information below.
Prepare and save your response using a word processing program, such as Microsoft Word. Save it to your computer in a place where you will be able to find it again.
This assignment requires a file upload submission. After you have reviewed the assignment instructions and rubric, as applicable, complete your submission by selecting the Submit Assignment button next to the assignment title.
This Case Study is worth 100 points toward your total points.
Important Guidelines
Your score will be determined using the Critical Legal Thinking Case Study Rubric. Please read this rubric thoroughly before attempting this assignment.
Your score will be determined by evaluation of your substantive content. Your analysis and solutions must be based on the principles of law, ethics, and businessnot on your opinions. You must describe how the application of the principles to the key facts supports your determination of the issues. In other words, you need to show the reasoning behind your decision.
Key facts are those facts that determine if the principles of law are met. You must demonstrate that you recognize the key facts in this case. List the key facts individually. Do not simply repeat or retype the factual scenario.
The length of your response has no bearing on your score. There is no minimum or limit, however, most responses will be between two and three substantial pages.
Your assignment must be prepared using the APA format. See the Student Resources page for more information about APA styling.
Ron supervises delivery of flowers for a wholesale distributor of fresh flowers, Flowers. Inc. In order to accommodate one of the company’s best customers, Ron offers to immediately rush a delivery of fresh peonies. All of the delivery trucks are currently out on delivery. Ron directs an employee, Ruth, to use her own vehicle to deliver the flowers.
Ruth carelessly parks her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolls down the hill, knocking down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignite a grass fire. The fire spreads until it reaches a gasoline station one mile away. There is a tanker truck off-loading gasoline to the station’s gas tanks. The fire ignites the gasoline being pumped into the tanks, and one of the tanks explodes, causing part of the station structure to fall on and injure a passing motorist, Jim.Can Jim recover damages from Ruth; from Flowers’ Inc? Why or why not?
Identify the cause of action. Discuss each element of the cause of action, and relate them to your assessment of whether Jim has a cause of action against Ruth.
Discuss the legal doctrine under which Jim might also recover from Flowers, Inc.
Draft your response.
Case Study must include cover page, abstract conclusion and references
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Critical Legal Thinking Case Study 2
Critical Legal Thinking Case Study 2