Week 1 Content Saylor: Advanced Business Law and the Legal Environment · Introduction to Law and the Legal System · Courts and the Legal Process · Constitutional Law and Commerce Saylor: The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business · The Rule of Law · Importance of Rule of Law to Business Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) The U.S. Constitution State Court Listings by Jurisdiction Week 2 Content Saylor: Advanced Business Law and the Legal Environment · Tort Law Civil and Criminal Law Comparison Elements of Negligence Summary Premises liability Introduction to Torts (video - 15 mins) Week 3 Content Review assigned materials in Week 2 Products Liability Case Examples:  Liriano v. Hobart Corp.; Daniell v Ford Motor Company; Klein v Pyrodyne Corp. (Links located below.) Case Examples  Warranties and Products Liability Liriano v. Hobart Corp.   92 N.Y.2d 232 (1998)  Court of Appeals of the State of New York  (failure to adequately warn, defective and negligent design) Facts: In 1961, Liriano, a 17 year-old employee in the meat department at Super Associated grocery store (Super), was injured on the job while feeding meat into a commercial meat grinder whose safety guard had been removed. His right hand and lower forearm were amputated. The meat grinder was manufactured and sold by Hobart Corporation (Hobart) with an affixed safety guard that prevented the user's hands from coming into contact with the grinder. No warnings were on the machine or otherwise provided to state it was dangerous to operate the machine without the safety guard in place. Subsequently, Hobart became aware that a significant number of purchasers of its meat grinders had removed the safety guards; in 1962, Hobart began issuing warnings on its meat grinders concerning removal of the safety guard. At trial, Super conceded the safety guard was intact at the time it acquired the grinder and that the guard was removed while in its possession. It is further conceded that Hobart actually knew, before the accident, that removals of this sort were occurring and that use of the machine without the safety guard was highly dangerous. Liriano sued Hobart for negligence and strict product liability for defective product design and failure to warn. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Super was impleaded as a third-party defendant, seeking indemnification and/or contribution. The District Court dismissed all of Liriano's claims except those based on failure to warn. The trial court ruled failure to warn was the proximate cause of Liriano's injuries and apportioned liability 5% to Hobart and 95% to Super.  On partial retrial, Liriano was assigned 33 1/3% of the responsibility. Hobart and Super appealed, arguing that they had no duty to warn, as a matter of law, and that the case should have been decided in their favor. Opinion: The appellate court agreed, essentially, with the rationale of the lower courts on the .

1. Week 1 Content
Saylor: Advanced Business Law and the Legal Environment
· Introduction to Law and the Legal System
· Courts and the Legal Process
· Constitutional Law and Commerce
Saylor: The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business
· The Rule of Law
· Importance of Rule of Law to Business
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
The U.S. Constitution
State Court Listings by Jurisdiction
Week 2 Content
Saylor: Advanced Business Law and the Legal Environment
· Tort Law
Civil and Criminal Law Comparison
Elements of Negligence Summary
Premises liability
Introduction to Torts (video - 15 mins)
Week 3 Content
Review assigned materials in Week 2
Products Liability
Case Examples: Liriano v. Hobart Corp.; Daniell v Ford Motor

2. Company; Klein v Pyrodyne Corp. (Links located below.)
Case Examples
Warranties and Products Liability
Liriano v. Hobart Corp. 92 N.Y.2d 232 (1998) Court of
Appeals of the State of New York (failure to adequately warn,
defective and negligent design)
Facts:
In 1961, Liriano, a 17 year-old employee in the meat department
at Super Associated grocery store (Super), was injured on the
job while feeding meat into a commercial meat grinder whose
safety guard had been removed. His right hand and lower
forearm were amputated.
The meat grinder was manufactured and sold by Hobart
Corporation (Hobart) with an affixed safety guard that
prevented the user's hands from coming into contact with the
grinder. No warnings were on the machine or otherwise
provided to state it was dangerous to operate the machine
without the safety guard in place. Subsequently, Hobart became
aware that a significant number of purchasers of its meat
grinders had removed the safety guards; in 1962, Hobart began
issuing warnings on its meat grinders concerning removal of the
safety guard.
At trial, Super conceded the safety guard was intact at the time
it acquired the grinder and that the guard was removed while in
its possession. It is further conceded that Hobart actually knew,
before the accident, that removals of this sort were occurring
and that use of the machine without the safety guard was highly
dangerous.
Liriano sued Hobart for negligence and strict product liability
for defective product design and failure to warn. The case was
removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and Super was impleaded as a third-party
defendant, seeking indemnification and/or contribution.
The District Court dismissed all of Liriano's claims except those
based on failure to warn. The trial court ruled failure to warn

3. was the proximate cause of Liriano's injuries and apportioned
liability 5% to Hobart and 95% to Super. On partial retrial,
Liriano was assigned 33 1/3% of the responsibility.
Hobart and Super appealed, arguing that they had no duty to
warn, as a matter of law, and that the case should have been
decided in their favor.
Opinion:
The appellate court agreed, essentially, with the rationale of the
lower courts on the issues of Hobart’s and Super’s liability.
The Court discussed the responsibility to warn of inherent
dangers. The Court declared, “A manufacturer who places a
defective product on the market that causes injury may be liable
for the ensuing injuries.***A product may be defective when it
contains a manufacturing flaw, is defectively designed or is not
accompanied by adequate warnings for the use of the
product.***A manufacturer has a duty to warn against latent
dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of its product of which
it knew or should have known.***A manufacturer also has a
duty to warn of the danger of unintended uses of a product
provided these uses are reasonably foreseeable.”
The Court further reasoned, “A manufacturer is not liable for
injuries caused by substantial alterations to the product by a
third party that render the product defective or
unsafe.***Where, however, a product is purposefully
manufactured to permit its use without a safety feature, a
plaintiff may recover for injuries suffered as a result of
removing the safety feature.”
Furthermore, the Court stated, “…Unlike design decisions that
involve the consideration of many interdependent factors, the
inquiry in a duty to warn case is much more limited, focusing
principally on the foreseeability of the risk and the adequacy
and effectiveness of any warning. The burden of placing a
warning on a product is less costly than designing a perfectly
safe, tamper-resistant product. Thus, although it is virtually
impossible to design a product to forestall all future risk-
enhancing modifications that could occur after the sale, it is

4. neither infeasible nor onerous, in some cases, to warn of the
dangers of foreseeable modifications that pose the risk of
injury.”
Manufacturer liability may exist under a failure-to-warn theory
in cases in which the substantial modification defense would
preclude liability under a design defect theory.
Daniell v. Ford Motor Company 581 F.Supp. 728 (1984) United
States District Court, D. New Mexico (gross consumer misuse,
unforeseeable misuse)
Facts:
Plaintiff Daniell locked herself inside the trunk of a 1973 Ford
automobile in an attempt to commit suicide; she remained in the
trunk for 9 days being unable to open the trunk lid until she was
rescued.
Daniell sued Ford to recover damages for psychological and
physical injuries arising from the incident. She contends that
the automobile had a design defect in that the trunk lock or
latch did not have an internal release or opening mechanism.
She also maintains that the manufacturer is liable based on a
failure to warn of this condition. Plaintiff argued several
theories for recovery: (1) strict products liability under § 402A
of the Restatement 2d of Torts (1965), (2) negligence, and (3)
breach of express warranty and implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
Opinion:
The Court addressed the plaintiff’s claims and reasoned, “The
overriding factor barring plaintiff's recovery is that she
intentionally sought to end her life by crawling into an
automobile trunk from which she could not escape. This is not a
case where a person inadvertently became trapped inside an
automobile trunk. The plaintiff was aware of the natural and
probable consequences of her perilous conduct…Plaintiff, not
the manufacturer of the vehicle, is responsible for this
unfortunate occurrence.”

5. Further, the Court declared, “A manufacturer will be liable for a
design defect only where the condition of the product is
unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer. Under strict
products liability or negligence, a manufacturer has a duty to
consider only those risks of injury which are foreseeable. A risk
is not foreseeable by a manufacturer where a product is used in
a manner which could not reasonably be anticipated by the
manufacturer and that use is the cause of the plaintiff's injury.
The plaintiff's use of the automobile and injury are not
foreseeable by the manufacturer.”
Therefore, the manufacturer had no duty to design an internal
release or opening mechanism that might have prevented this
occurrence. Nor did the manufacturer have a duty to warn the
plaintiff of the danger of her conduct, given the plaintiff's
unforeseeable use of the product.
“Any implied warranty of merchantability requires that the
product must be fit for the ordinary purposes for which it was
intended…the usual and ordinary purpose of an automobile
trunk is to transport and store goods, including the automobile's
spare tire. Plaintiff's use of the trunk was highly extraordinary,
and there is no evidence that that trunk was not fit for the
ordinary purpose for which it was intended.”
The Court concluded, “Lastly, plaintiff's claim for a breach of
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, cannot
withstand summary judgment because the plaintiff has admitted
that, at the time she purchased the automobile neither she nor
her husband gave any particular thought to the trunk
mechanism…that she did not even think about getting out from
inside of the trunk.”
Judgment for defendant.
Strict Liability
Klein v. Pyrodyne Corporation 817 P.2d 1359 (strict
liability)
Supreme Court of Washington
Facts:
The plaintiffs in this case are persons injured when an aerial

6. shell at a public fireworks exhibition went astray and exploded
near them. The defendant is the pyrotechnic company, Pyrodyne
Corp., hired to set up and discharge the fireworks. All
operators of the fireworks display were Pyrodyne employees
acting within the scope of their employment duties at the time
of the accident.
During the fireworks display, a 5-inch mortar was knocked into
a horizontal position so that an aerial shell inside was ignited
and discharged. The shell flew 500 feet and exploded near the
crowd of onlookers. Plaintiffs Danny and Marion Klein were
injured by the explosion.
The issue before this court is whether Pyrodyne is strictly liable
for damages caused by fireworks displays.
Kleins contend that strict liability is the appropriate standard to
determine the culpability of Pyrodyne because Pyrodyne was
participating in an abnormally dangerous activity.
Pyrodene moved for summary judgment which the court denied.
Opinion:
The Court reasoned, “Section 520 of the Restatement lists six
factors that are to be considered in determining whether an
activity is "abnormally dangerous". The factors are as follows:
(a) existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the
person, land or chattels of others; (b) likelihood that the harm
that results from it will be great; (c) inability to eliminate the
risk by the exercise of reasonable care; (d) extent to which the
activity is not a matter of common usage; (e) inappropriateness
of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and (f) extent
to which its value to the community is outweighed by its
dangerous attributes.”
The Court also considered who should bear the loss when an
innocent person is injured through the nonculpable but
abnormally dangerous activities of another. The Court
concluded that in the case of fireworks displays, it is most fair
for the pyrotechnicians who present the displays to bear the loss
rather than the injured parties.
Pyrodyne argued that even if there is strict liability for

7. fireworks, it is not liable under the facts of this case because of
the manufacturer's negligence in producing the fireworks.
According to Pyrodyne, a shell detonated without leaving the
mortar box because it was negligently manufactured.
The Court argued, “…intervening acts of third persons serve to
relieve the defendant from strict liability for abnormally
dangerous activities only if those acts were unforeseeable in
relation to the extraordinary risk created by the activity.” Given
the nature of fireworks, it is foreseeable an accident could
occur.
Pyrodyne Corporation is strictly liable for all damages suffered
by plaintiff as a result of the fireworks display. Detonating
fireworks displays constitutes an abnormally dangerous activity
warranting strict liability. Public policy also supports this
conclusion.
Affirmed.
PSYCHOLOGY
5
Psychology
Joseph Gardner
University of Phoenix

8. The Benefits of Understanding Developmental Psychology
I. Introduction
Developmental psychology is categorized as a scientific
approach which its objective is to explain change, consistency,
and growth which occurs throughout the lifespan of human
beings. Most theories in the developmental psychology mainly
focus development in childhood stage since it is at this stage
whereby most development occurs in the lifespan of human
beings. Developmental psychology field is mainly dominated by
psychologists from Europe and North American although in the
recent year’s Japanese researcher has started contributing into
the field.
II. Thesis Statement
Development psychology is an important field since it equips
people with knowledge which assist them to come up with
solutions of some of the developmental challenges, thus aiding
them to achieve and fulfill their ambitions.
A. How Developmental Psychology Is Applicable In Life
Developmental psychology knowledge is applicable to all kind
of people in the society irrespective of their age. For instance,
the parent should focus on developmental areas of a child which
include cognitive, communication, physical, and emotional
(Baltes et al., 2014). If a child has not started walking by an age
of sixteen to eighteen months, the child-parent should seek a
medical attention so as to determine whether the child has any
developmental problems, and through that, the child can be
assisted to overcome the problem.
Moreover, the developmental psychologist provides assistance
to elderly people who might have a health challenge which
mainly results due to their old age. Furthermore, developmental
psychology is also applicable during the prenatal period.
Developmental psychologist aid in educating expectant mother

9. on how to live a healthy life which will result in a healthy fetus.
Similarly, the specialist educates children on how to overcome
certain issues associated with emotional, social or mental health
issues (Eliot, 2016). Consequently, the psychologist assists
teenagers which are at their adolescence on how to overcome
the effect of a developmental process which occurs at that stage
and a result they will manage to achieve their ambitions.
Subsequently, the psychologist also assists both early adults and
middle adults on a matter concerning relationship and families.
B. Benefits of Developmental Psychology
The professionals in the developmental psychology do a lot of
studies analyzing and observing the changes which occur in
human being under normal circumstances and also the factors
which can disrupt or hinder the development process. Hence,
that knowledge is beneficial and is applied to aid or assist
people to know their potential, thus encouraging them to work
hard and achieve their ambitions, therefore contributing to the
development of a country.
Additionally, the knowledge of developmental psychology may
be used by parents to identify various challenges in their
children. Hence, helping them to seek medical attention as early
as possible (Ludlow & Gutierrez, 2014). Some developmental
challenges can be treated and cured if a child can be subjected
on early treatment, however, some of them can become chronic
if not treated on their early stages and hence can result to the
development of frustration, depression, low achievement in
school, and low self-esteem to a child.
III. Conclusion
In conclusion, the developmental psychology is an important
science field since it aids in the development of knowledge
which is mainly used to solve a various problem which arises in
human development. The knowledge of the field has assisted
many people across the world to achieve their ambitions.

10. References
Baltes, P. B., Reese, H. W., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2014). Life-
span developmental psychology: Introduction to research
methods. Psychology Press.
Eliot, G. (2016). The mill on the Floss. New York: Open Road
Integrated Media.
Ludlow, A., & Gutierrez, R. (2014). Developmental psychology.
Basingstoke [u.a.]: Palgrave Macmillan.
Purpose
The purpose of this project is to create a plan that demonstrates
your understanding of tort law.
This project requires you to identify and analyze legal issues
and to make recommendations based on one or more fact
patterns. The issues will relate to the concepts covered in weeks
1, 2, and 3 about the legal environment of business and business
organizations.
You will also develop skills in developing a PowerPoint
presentation, in writing a summary report and using critical
thinking to write an in-depth comprehensive analysis.
Outcomes Met by Completing this Assignment:
· recommend appropriate actions in the business environment

11. based on an understanding of sources of law, legal process and
procedure, and available remedies
· analyze tort rights, obligations, liabilities, and remedies in the
business environment
NOTE:All submitted work is to be your original work (only
your work). You may not use any work from another student,
the Internet or an online clearinghouse. You are expected to
understand the Academic Dishonesty and Plagiarism Policy, and
know that it is your responsibility to learn about instructor and
general academic expectations with regard to proper citation of
sources as specified in the APA Publication Manual, 6th Ed.
You are held accountable for in-text citations and an associated
reference list only.
Background: PI plans to headquarter the business in
commercial space in a local shopping center. The PI
headquarters will include private business offices, a reception
area, and a conference meeting and planning
space to which potential and existing customers will be invited
to discuss proposals for painting jobs, paint
products, and to complete contracts for painting jobs. The
business space will be open to the public to
collect information and inquire about PI services, examine paint
displays, and view photos and exhibits from
ongoing and past painting jobs.
The shopping center in which PI will be headquartered is busy
and heavily trafficked with customers every day. The PI owners
are concerned about potential accidents on the store property
and other liabilities that could arise with customers and
employees.
At the direction of your supervisors at BC, you are tasked to
develop a plan to identify and minimize potential tort risks that
PI faces in its public retail store operations.
PI owners will use the plan to refine policies and procedures to
prevent and/or minimize liabilities for PI in the retail facility.

12. Instructions
For this project, you will write a plan to be presented in a
PowerPoint (PPT) presentation.
There is no set number of slides but include a title page and a
reference page.
Unless your professor instructs otherwise, please place notes
and explanations for EACH slide directly on slides in the PPT
presentation - not in a separate document. You will need more
than one PPT slide for each point/idea/concept. Everything you
want to say/include in the PPT presentation should be contained
in the PPT slides.
The plan focuses on potential tort liabilities (except NOT
product liability).
The Power Point presentation will:
A. identify and describe several specific tort liabilities that PI
could face in its retail store operations;
B. develop and explain policies and/or procedures PI could
implement to prevent or minimize each tort risk discussed in A.
above;
C. evaluate and discuss how PI owners should orient employees
to apply these policies and/or procedures to prevent or minimize
identified tort risks.
You should use only assigned resources available in the
classroom for the project.
If needed, please refer to the following links for tips on
preparing a PPT presentation.
Creating a Power Point
http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/les
son1063/CreatingPowerPointSlide.pdf
Power Point for Beginners
http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/les
son1063/CreatingPowerPointSlide.pdf
Use in text citations, as needed.
Include a References list of cited resources
Label each part of the Power Point as follows:

13. A.
B.
C.
Review the Plan
Thoroughly read the presentation to ensure all required
elements are present. Use the grading rubric to ensure that you
gain the most points possible for this assignment.
Proofread for spelling and grammatical issues, and third person
writing.
· Read the Power Points presentation aloud as a first measure;
· Use the spell and grammar check in Word;
· Have someone who has excellent English skills proof the
presentation.
Submit the project in the Assignment Folder The assignment
submitted to the Assignment Folder will be considered a
student’s final product and therefore ready for grading by the
instructor. It is incumbent upon the student to verify the
assignment is the correct submission. No exceptions!