Discussion 2: The Smith's, A Case Study Background Information Welcome to the first discussion. In this course you will be introduced to a topic in the discussion. The first week of the module you will write about your initial thoughts after reviewing the resources. The initial post should be at least 600 words. During the following week you will reply to at least two of your classmates. The replies should be at least 200 words. See the discussion rubric for more details on grading. Discussions should always be completed prior to "class." If you are in an online class or an on ground course this is prior to the lesson portion of the week. Are you ready to begin? 1. Read the case study, The Smith’s (See Important Documents)

Watch https://youtu.be/n7ilMPsPjrY 3. Watch the Ted Talk: Does the media have a "duty of care"? https://www.ted.com/talks/david_puttnam_what_happens_when_the_media_s_priority_is_profit?utm_source=tedcomshare&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tedspread 4. Initial Post What do you think the company did well? What do you think the company did poorly? How would you have prevented the liability? 5. Reply Posts Do you agree or disagree with your classmates' posts, or can you offer different insight? Reply to 1 students. Reply on this discussion: There are a handful of things that Mr. and Mrs. Smith bakery did well – although at a later stage when the problem was beyond remedy. Upon noticing the icy patch on the floor of the Retail store, Celeste did the right thing to alert the manager of the outlet. Mrs. Smith was also right to call the management company to try and rectify the issue at the Retail store. In addition, the Retail store manager eventually did the right thing by hanging up a notice at the outlet to notify customers of the potentially slippery floor (Pape, 2013). On the other hand, the company did poorly on so many aspects. As the tenants of the Retail store, the business owners should have taken upon themselves to repair the dripping water on the surface of the floor instead of waiting for either the owner or the management company to take initiative in the matter – the call to the management company was an unnecessary and a late move because the company postponed looking into the issue. Celeste was also wrong for failing to inform her parents, as the directors of the company, about the issue, as she only informed the Retail manger. She should have followed up on the matter while Retail manager should have had the situation rectified as she was aware about it. Failing to uphold standards amounts to negligence – for instance, there was negligence in this case where dripping water should have been repaired early in advance – there is a clear case of negligence due to the carelessness exhibited and which eventually resulted in physical harm to Sam (Horsey & Rackley). As such, Sam does not have a negligence case against the owners as the owners are mere landlords who have tasked agents with a fiduciary duty to discharge key functions on their behalf; the case that Sam should pursue should not be against the owners since they were neither the managers nor the tenants of the building. Sam has a water tight negligence case against the Bakery – this is because the tenancy agreement between the management group and the Bakery stipulates that it is the tenant who should have been responsible for the repairs on the leased property; this effectively transferred the obligation to undertake repairs on the building to the Bakery. Moreover, the business owners had the chance to put up a notice early in advance for customers to avoid stepping on the slippery floor and avoid the legal liability on negligence (Matthews, 2015). As such Sam has the right to sue the Bakery for any physical damage he suffered. Sam does not have a negligence case against either the owner of the building or its management group – this is because the owner, as much he is the principal in the agency relationship with the management company, is not involved in the active management of the property as he had contracted these responsibilities to the management company; moreover, management company could have been negligent if the retail store could not have been leased out to any tenant; however, once the space was leased to the Bakery, the management group absolved itself from the routine repairs needed at the building, this responsibility falls squarely on the management of the Bakery represented by Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2016). The liability could have been avoided through clear communication where both Celeste and the retail store manager could have informed Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who in turn would have made prompt arrangements for the leak to be repaired as a matter of urgency. The other preventive action to avoid liability would have been the erection of a clear and visible warning sign to customers alerting them of the icy and slippery floor (Pape, 2013); this could have made the majority of the people coming in and out of the shop aware of the potentially situation.