Law & Ethics in The Business Environment

Chapter 1 , Question 2

The legal and ethical issues at hand in the Tidmore discussion are complex and under current scrutiny in California and other areas where the concept of duty ' as it applies to the law are under assault . As determined by the California appellate court in 1998 , Fiss had a contractual duty to respond to Tidmore 's call for assistance in changing the flat tire . However , from there the ethical and legal considerations get complicated in a mess that it is difficult to interpret and explains why juries often do

things that seem to make no sense at all

The first issue to be discussed in the Tidmore cases was if the auto club could have refused to send Tidmore assistance when he called . Yes they could have , but Tidmore would have had an excellent case under contract law statutes for breach of contract . Tidmore has paid for a service from the auto club and is entitled to that service . This may be the single easiest to determine point of law in the entire discussion but even this one can get murky when circumstances are applied Ultimately , the appellate court used this contractual obligation as a major factor in determining the law with regard to the Tidmore case Specifically , attorneys for the respondent (the auto club ) had argued that they bore no responsibility or Tidmore 's injuries because his injuries resulted from his own neglect , i .e . he allowed the conditions to occur that resulted in the flat tire and therefore , under negligence laws was responsible for his own injuries . While this argument seems questionable given that Tidmore had a contract with the auto club for just this sort of problem , the trial judge accepted the argument and the respondent 's request for summary judgment dismissing the case . Tidmore had to take his case to the appellate court to get the matters of law clarified

In its ruling , the appellate court said that the trial judge had misapplied California 's rescue doctrine ' and remanded the case back to the trial court for hearing . The trial court relied on existing case law to make the decision , but it is very complicated . The law states that when a person is in a situation caused by negligence and a second person is injured while rescuing from that situation , the second person may recover damages from the person who was negligent . The trial court asserted that the rescue doctrine by its very nature implies the existence of a third party which was negligent . The trail c0ourt ruled that since the negligence was , depending on the side being argued either Fiss ' for improper use of the jack , or Tidmore 's for creating the circumstance by allowing his tire to go flat , there was no third party involvement and the rescue doctrine did not apply , Tidmore stipulated to the auto club 's assertion of facts but argued with their application of the law and won on the appellate level . But this issue is far...