Posted on

MGMT 520 Legal, Political and Ethical Dimensions of Business Week 5- Discussion 1 – Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store Case

MGMT 520 Legal, Political and Ethical Dimensions of Business Week 5- Discussion 1 – Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store Case

MGMT 520 Legal, Political and Ethical Dimensions of Business Week 5- Discussion 1 – Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store Case

MGMT 520 Legal, Political and Ethical Dimensions of Business Week 5- Discussion 1 – Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store Case

Please read problem 3 at the end of Chapter 17 regarding the lawsuit by alleged thief Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store. Under what theory might Mr. Mapp argue that Gimbels is liable for the assault committed against Mapp by Mr. DiDomenico, an employee of J.C. Penney’s? Would Mr. Mapp be successful under the theory you chose? Why or why not?
3. On March 29, 1983, Barry Mapp was observed in the JCPenney department store in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, by security personnel, who suspected that he might be a shoplifter. Michael DiDomenico, a security guard employed by JCPenney, followed Mr. Mapp when he left the store and proceeded to Gimbels department store. There, Mr. DiDomenico notified Rosemary Federchok, a Gimbels security guard, about his suspicions. Even though his assis- tance was not requested, Mr. DiDomenico decided to remain to assist in case Ms. Federchok, a short woman of slight build, required help in dealing with Mr. Mapp if he committed an offense in Gimbels. It came as no surprise when Mr. Mapp was observed taking items from the men’s department of the store; when he attempted to escape, he was pursued. Although Ms. Federchok was unable to keep up, Mr. DiDomenico continued to pursue Mr. Mapp and ultimately apprehended him in the lower level of the Gimbels parking lot. When Ms. Federchok arrived with Upper Darby police, merchandise that had been taken from Gimbels was recovered. Mr. Mapp, who had been injured when he jumped from one level of the parking lot to another, was taken to the Delaware County Memorial Hospital, where he was treated for a broken ankle. Mr. Mapp filed suit against Gimbels for injuries sustained while being chased and apprehended by Mr. DiDomenico. He alleged in his complaint that Mr. DiDomenico, while acting as an agent of Gimbels, had chased him, had struck him with a nightstick, and had beaten him with his fists. Gimbels says it is not liable because Mr. DiDomenico was not its agent. Is Gimbels correct? [Mapp v Gimbels Dep’t Store, 540 A.2d 941 (Pa. 1988)] It is settled law that a principal may be held responsible for the tortious (wrongful) actions of an employee for acts carried out in the course of and within the scope of employment. (See in your text, Lange v. National Biscuit Co)
On the other hand, it will be more difficult to hold a principal responsible for the actions of a party not its agent. When looking at this case, what theory might Mr. Mapp use to argue that Gimbel’s is liable for the assault committed against him by Mr. DiDomenico, an employee of J.C. Penney’s? How will Gimbels counter that argument?

For instant digital download of the above solution, Please click on the “PURCHASE” link below to get the tutorial for MGMT 520 Legal, Political and Ethical Dimensions of Business Week 5- Discussion 1 – Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store Case

For instant digital download of the above solution or tutorial, please click on the below link and make an instant purchase. You will be guided to the PAYPAL Standard payment page wherein you can pay and you will receive an email immediately with a download link.

In case you find any problem in getting the download link or downloading the tutorial, please send us an email on mail@genietutorial.com