There is this onion that I'm cooking.
and. in my mind I'm just thinking:
I'm really hoping this boiled onion
I'm really hoping this boiled onion
turns out amazing. I Kind of have
to think about. well. I guess everything
isn't really the end of the universe or
anything. i think that everything might
be okay.
wulf v bravo brio restaurant group 2019
wulf is appealing
the summary judgement of the trial court the original
original was suit was for damages as a result from
negligent behavior of a bravo employee
facts
wulf was injured while dining at cucina italiana in
west chester ohio - he stated that while he was on his
way to the restroom a woman in a bravo uniform
backed into him, causing him to fall and break his hip
wulf also states that the woman apologized to him for
the accident, and that the woman acknowledged working
for the restaurant
wulf also mentioned that another person dining at the
restaurant mentioned witnessing the incident.
however, wulf was never able to specifically identify
and name the waitress who bumped into him and
that he only knew that it was a bravo employee's fault
because the woman in the bravo uniform said she
caused the issue
issues
is a plaintiff required to specifically identify and name
a negligent employee for the doctrine of respondeat superior
to apply
what types of hazards does the open and obvious doctrine
apply to
was it appropriate for the trial court to grant a summary judgement
in favor of the defendant bravo brio restaurant group
rule
the doctrine of respondeat superior does
not require that an employee be specifically
identified and named for an employer to be deemed
liable for the negligent behavior of an employee
the open and obvious doctrine applies to static hazards
and not dynamic hazards
the trial court granting a summary judgement in favor of
the defendant was not appropriate
application
the appellate court ruled that an employee only need
to be identified as an employee and to have been acting
within the scope of employment for the employer to be
held liable for the negligent behaviour of an employee
the employee does not need to be specifically
identified and named as a party to the suit
for the doctrine of respondeat superior to apply
the appellate court noted that bravo brio cited
cases regarding respondeat superior where the
negligent employees happened to be named and
specifically identified
however the cases cited did not establish that
a negligent employee must be named and
specifically identified
the cases only established that an employee must
be identified as an employee and acting within
the scope of employment
it was determined that it was sufficient to establish
liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior
that the woman who apologized for causing wulf's
fall was wearing a bravo uniform, and that she
acknowledged working for the bravo restaurant.
the appellate court then discussed the open and obvious
doctrine and stated that there are two distinct types of hazards
static and dynamic hazards,
which create two distinct
and separate duties that the premises
owner has with respect to it's business invitees
negligence claims related to static hazards are related to the
duty of the owner of the premises has with respect to maintaining
the business premises in a reasonably safe condition and
warning invitees of dangers that they wouldn't generally
be aware of
open and obvious hazards serve as a warning
to business invitees as a result of their open and
obvious nature and the premises owner has no
duty to warn since the hazards themselves serve
as a warning
the open and obvious doctrine does not apply
to dynamic hazards
negligence claims related to dynamic hazards
are related to the active duty a premises owner has
to not to expose an invitee through act or omission
to negligent activities conducted on the premises
in the trial case, bravo brio presented the kitchen counter
where the servers and staff worked as an open and obvious
hazard, and that Roland Wulf assumed the risk of walking
closely behind the servers in this area.
but it wasn't the kitchen counter, a static hazard, that
caused Roland Wulf's injury, it was the activities of the
servers that caused the injury, and those activities, deemed
negligent in this case, were a dynamic hazard
the discussion around whether or not it was appropriate
for the trial court to grant a summary judgement in favor
of bravo brio takes up the majority of the appellate court's opinion,
the appellate court starts by defining when it is appropriate
for a court to grant summary judgment:
conclusion
the case was reversed and remanded
considering that there is no case history after the 2019
decision, the professor mentioned that it is possible
the case was settled
Ares Management Corporation Extends $275 Million credit facility to ID.me, and also plans to make a substantial equity investment in the company.
Course Relevance:
This reminds me of problem 31 in Chapter 3 where Pinnacle acquires Strata, and part of Strata's Accounts Payable is an Accounts Receivable owned by Pinnacle.
This also relates to Chapter 1 and other chapters in that I don't think that Ares Management Corporation will use the Equity Method when accounting for its eventual equity investment in ID.me, I'm thinking that they will use the fair-value method or the cost method when they eventually make their equity investment in ID.me.
I've also found this relevant to the material in Chapter 4 with respect to the concept of noncontrolling interests; a company like Ares might find it undesirable to be materially involved in the operations of ID.me.
Why I Found It Interesting:
I was researching something somewhat unrelated to class in Mergent Bond Viewer by FTSE Russell, and a bond issue by Ares Capital Corporation stood out to me. I wanted to figure out what the money from the bond issue would be used for, so I tried looking up press releases for Ares on Dow Jones Factiva, and it took me to news related to Ares Management Corporation; Ares Capital Corporation and Ares Management Corporation are two different, but related companies, it seems. I read the first few articles and the ID.me credit facility extension caught my attention, and after reading it I thought about some of the course material from ACC 725, and at that point I gave up on trying to figure out what the money from the bond issue would be used for.
Follow Up:
I tried to find a prospectus for these bonds using a variety of different resources, but couldn't come up with anything; even if I had tracked down a prospectus for these bonds, I'm not sure how useful it would be: I've found that the typical Use of Proceeds section of a bond prospectus reads something like: "For General Corporate Purposes, Including" and then goes on to include every conceivable use of the funds.
No comments:
Post a Comment