Business Law Case Analysis

See attached file.  Be sure to use legal references including case law and legislation in the analysis.

 

I will need to have this returned to me by next Friday, 12/6/
2013

 

Review the following scenario and answer the questions:

Dangerfield, Inc., a Delaware c-corporation, owns and operates a ski resort in New Hampshire. Certain aspects of the business, including valet parking, are handled by a sister corporation, Continental Concessions, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company. Both Dangerfield and Continental are wholly owned subsidiaries of Sandman Resorts, Inc., a New Hampshire s-corporation.

Sara Hartman arrived at the resort on January 16, 2011, a day on which six inches of snow had fallen. She was planning to spend a week at the resort as a guest. Hartman pulled into a short line of cars waiting for the valet. The driveway had been cleared several hours earlier, but between one and two inches of snow had since accumulated.

Greg Mitchell, a Continental valet parking attendant (an employee of Continental) gave Harman a receipt for her car. On the back of the receipt were the words “The Management is Not Responsible for Damages Incurred by Valet Parking Customers.” Harman put the receipt in her purse without reading it.

Hartman then got out of her car and Mitchell entered the car to park it. Hartman walked to the front of her car and turned right, between her car and the car ahead, toward the ski lodge entrance. At the same time, Mitchell shifted the car into drive and slowly started driving forward. Suddenly he looked up, saw Hartman in the space between the two cars (approximately four feet) and attempted to brake. His foot slipped from the brake onto the accelerator and the car moved forward, crushing Hartman between the two cars, causing serious injuries. Mitchell jumped from the car to assist Harman, but slipped on the snow and also suffered serious injuries.

Hartman sued Dangerfield, Continental and Sandman. She contended that Continental was liable for the negligence of its parking attendant and for independent negligence, that Dangerfield was liable under alternative rationales of premises liability, apparent agency or single business entity, and “alter ego” or “mere instrumentality,” and that Sandman was liable because Continental and Dangerfield were its mere instrumentalities.

In a separate lawsuit, Mitchell sued Hartman, Continental, Sandman and Dangerfield. He contended that Hartman was negligent by walking in front of her car knowing that it was about to move. He alleges that Sandman and Dangerfield permitted multiple dangerous conditions to exist, which contributed to his injuries, so his claim is based on strict liability. His claim against Continental is for his wages for the pay period that included the date of his injury.

Assess the claims made by Hartman and Mitchell, and assess the defenses available to Sandman, Continental and Dangerfield. What liability, if any, do the three defendants owe to the two plaintiffs, or to each other?

Beyond these two lawsuits, what additional legal claims might these defendants face?

Answer the questions and use the following in your analysis to support your conclusions.

· Law and Business Decisions

· Impactful Law Principles

· Distrust of the Law and Misconceptions

Remember to use legal references including case law and legislation in the analysis.