Legal Issues of Zoom Car Company

Legal Issues of Zoom Car Company This paper discusses whether Zoom Car Company’s conduct of selling a car with faulty dashboard compass to Daniel Boone constituted a tort as presented in the hypothetical case? This question is significant because Zoom Car Company can only be held liable for Daniel Boone’s loss if its action significantly contributed to Daniel Boone’s physical harm. Zoom Car Company committed an unintentional tort by selling a car with faulty dashboard compass to Daniel Boone.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Legal Issues of Zoom Car Company specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Under torts law, Zoom Car Company should assume liability for any accident that occurs as a result of faults in its cars. Even though Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc. also committed a tort by selling a faulty dashboard compass to Zoom Car Company, it is the responsibility of Zoom Car Company to ensure that all dashboard compasses are in good condition before installing then in their cars. It is clear from the facts provided in the hypothetical case that Daniel Boone, the plaintiff suffered physical injury. It is also clear from the facts in the case that the plaintiff got lost while driving at night and drove into a high crime area mainly due to the faulty dashboard compass installed in his car. The main reason why the plaintiff opted to buy a car from Zoom Car Company was the fact that its cars had dashboard compasses and would thus assist him in finding his direction whenever he is lost. Daniel Boone’s loss was largely caused by the fact that his dashboard compass was faulty. It is as a result of this that Daniel Boone found himself in a high crime area and ended up with physical injury. Had his dashboard compass been in good working condition, Daniel Boone would not have faced such a misfortune and would have also not incurred any medical cost. Under torts law, the defendant is liable for the plai ntiff’s misfortune as it would have been avoided if his car was installed with proper dashboard compass. The defendant unintentionally caused loss to the plaintiff and should thus take responsibility for his medical costs. While it is clear that the plaintiff suffered injury and incurred medical expenses, it is not clear whether the dashboard compass installed in his car was faulty at the time he bought this car from Zoom Car Company. There is a possibility that the plaintiff would have tempered with the dashboard compass. Besides, customers are always given the opportunity to confirm that goods are in good working condition before purchasing them. How come the plaintiff did not detect the faultiness of dashboard compass at the time he was purchasing this car? Is the defendant’s conduct outrageous to have caused the plaintiff his misfortune? Remember Zoom Car Company only installs dashboard compasses.Advertising Looking for essay on common law? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The company responsible for manufacturing dashboard compasses is Corrigan Rulers Compasses and Slide Rules, Inc. If the dashboard compasses was not properly installed then, the defendant would be liable. The plaintiff should be clear on whether the dashboard compass was faulty or not properly installed before placing any liability on the defendant. Under civil law, defendant is not directly linked to the plaintiff’s misfortune and, therefore, is not liable to his medical costs. If I was the charge presiding over this case, my ruling would be based on a critical analysis of the facts presented above. First, it is clear from these facts that both the plaintiff and the defendant contributed to the loss suffered by the plaintiff. Under comparative negligence rule, the defendant is only liable for the loss suffered by the plaintiff if he/she had the highest percentage of contribution to the loss. In this ca se, the defendant contributed to the plaintiff’s loss by selling a car with faulty dashboard compass to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contributed to the loss through his negligence as he did not bother to confirm whether the compass was faulty during the purchase of the vehicle and by driving at night when he is not sure of his direction. Apart from comparative negligence, vicarious liability ruling is also applicable in this case. Under vicarious liability, the defendant is liable for harm caused to the plaintiff as a result of a legally binding relationship between them. While this ruling is most applicable when dealing with employee-employer relationship, in this case the car will assume the position of the employee and Zoom Car Company, the employer. It is due to the fault in the car that the plaintiff suffered damage. Since the car was bought from Zoom Car Company, the company should assume any liability arising from faults in the car. Besides, the plaintiff entrusted his future safety to the defendant when he bought a car with dashboard compass assuming that he will never lose his direction. The defendant is thus liable to his loss under torts law as its car failed to fulfill this responsibility. From this analysis, I can conclusively rule that the defendant is liable for loss suffered by the plaintiff. First, the defendant greatly contributed to loss through its negligence. The company ought to verify its devices before installing them to ensure that they are in good working condition. If this was done the damage suffered by the plaintiff would have been avoided. Second, as the company responsible for installing dashboard compasses in their cars, the plaintiff should assume any vicarious liability resulting from faultiness of this device. Zoom Car Company should thus assume liability for Daniel Boone’s medical costs.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Legal Issues of Zoom Car Company specifically for you for only $1 6.05 $11/page Learn More

Origins of the Ancient Mesoamerican Ballgame

Origins of the Ancient Mesoamerican Ballgame The Mesoamerican Ball Game is the oldest known sport in the Americas  and originated in southern Mexico approximately 3,700 years ago. For many pre-Columbian cultures, such as the Olmec, Maya, Zapotec, and Aztec, it was a ritual, political and social activity that involved the whole community. The ball game took place in specific I-shaped buildings, recognizable in many archaeological sites, called ballcourts. There are an estimated 1,300 known ballcourts in Mesoamerica. Origins of the Mesoamerican Ball Game The earliest evidence of the practice of the ball game comes to us from ceramic figurines of ballplayers recovered from El Opeà ±o, Michoacan state in western Mexico about 1700 BC. Fourteen rubber balls were found at the shrine of El Manatà ­ in Veracruz, deposited over a long period beginning about 1600 BC. The oldest example of a ballcourt discovered to date was built about 1400 BC, at the site of Paso de la Amada, an important Formative site in the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico; and the first consistent imagery, including ball-playing costumes and paraphernalia, is known from the San Lorenzo Horizon of the Olmec civilization, ca 1400-1000 BC. Archaeologists agree that the origin of the ball game is linked with the origin of ranked society. The ball court at Paso de la Amada was constructed near the chiefs house and, later on, the famous colossal heads were carved depicting leaders wearing ballgame helmets. Even if the locational origins are not clear, archaeologists believe that the ball game represented a form of social display- whoever had the resources to organize it gained social prestige. According to Spanish historical records and indigenous codexes, we know that the Maya and Aztecs used the ball game to solve hereditary issues, wars, to foretell the future and to make important ritual and political decisions. Where the Game Was Played The ball game was played in specific open constructions called ball courts. These usually were laid out in the form of a capital I, consisting of two parallel structures that delimited a central court. These lateral structures had sloping walls and benches, where the ball bounced, and some had stone rings suspended from the top. Ball courts were usually surrounded by other buildings and facilities, most of which probably were of perishable materials; however, masonry constructions usually involved surrounding low walls, small shrines, and platforms from which people observed the game. Almost all main Mesoamerican cities had at least one ball court. Interestingly, no ball court has yet been identified at Teotihuacan, the major metropolis of Central Mexico. An image of a ball game is visible on the murals of Tepantitla, one of Teotihuacans residential compounds, but no ball court. The Terminal Classic Maya city of Chichen Itz has the largest ball court; and El Tajin, a center that flourished between the Late Classic and the Epiclassic on the Gulf Coast, had as many as 17 ball courts. How the Game Was Played Evidence suggests that a wide variety of types of games, all played with a rubber ball, existed in ancient Mesoamerica, but the most widespread was the hip game. This was played by two opposing teams, with a variable number of players. The aim of the game was to put the ball into the opponents end zone without using hands or feet: only hips could touch the ball. The game was scored using different point systems; but we have no direct accounts, either indigenous or European, that precisely describe the techniques or rules of the game. Ball games were violent and dangerous and players wore protective gear, usually made of leather, such as helmets, knee pads, arm and chest protectors and gloves. Archaeologists call the special protection constructed for the hips yokes, for their resemblance to animal yokes. A further violent aspect of the ball game involved human sacrifices, which were often an integral part of the activity. Among the Aztec, decapitation was a frequent end for the losing team. It has also been suggested that the game was a way to resolve conflicts among polities without resorting to real warfare. The Classic Maya origin story told in the Popol Vuh describes the ballgame as a contest between humans and underworld deities, with the ballcourt representing a portal to the underworld. However, ball games were also the occasion for communal events such as feasting, celebration, and gambling. The Players The entire community was differently involved in a ball game: Ballplayers: The players themselves were probably men of noble origins or aspirations. The winners gained both wealth and social prestige.Sponsors: Ball court construction, as well as game organization, required some form of sponsorship. Affirmed leaders, or people who wanted to be leaders, considered ball game sponsorship an opportunity to emerge or reaffirm their power.Ritual Specialists: Ritual specialists often performed religious ceremonies before and after the game.Audience: All sorts of people participated as spectators to the event: local commoners and people coming from other towns, nobles, sport supporters, food sellers and other vendors.Gamblers: Gambling was an integral component of ball games. Bettors were both nobles and commoners, and sources tell us that the Aztec had very strict regulations about bet payments and debts. A modern version of the Mesoamerican ballgame, called ulama, is still played in Sinaloa, Northwest Mexico. The game is played with a rubber ball hit only with the hips and resemble a net-less volleyball. Updated by K. Kris Hirst Sources Blomster JP. 2012. Early evidence of the ballgame in Oaxaca, Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition. Diehl RA. 2009. Death Gods, Smiling Faces Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Inc: FAMSI. (accessed in November 2010)and Colossal Heads: Archaeology of the Mexican Gulf Lowlands. Hill WD, and Clark JE. 2001. Sports, Gambling, and Government: Americas First Social Compact? American Anthropologist 103(2):331-345. Hosler D, Burkett SL, and Tarkanian MJ. 1999. Prehistoric Polymers: Rubber Processing in Ancient Mesoamerica. Science 284(5422):1988-1991. Leyenaar TJJ. 1992. Ulama, the survival of the Mesoamerican ballgame Ullamaliztli. Kiva 58(2):115-153. Paulinyi Z. 2014. The butterfly bird god and his myth at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 25(01):29-48. Taladoire E. 2003. Could we speak of the Super Bowl at Flushing Meadows?: La pelota . Ancient Mesoamerica 14(02):319-342.mixteca, a third pre-Hispanic ballgame, and its possible architectural context