Theory to Practice - Chapter 9 (p. 304) Facts: Computer Installers Inc. (CI) is a company that sells, installs, and maintains computer networks for organizations that have large numbers of users. CI entered into a contract with Big Time Firm (BTF) to replace the firm's computer network. CI's contract included routine installation tasks such as laying network cable and wiring in the various offices to facilitate numerous network users simultaneously, installing new PCs in one-third of the network user stations, and setting up an appropriate network server with sufficient back-up capability. CI arrived on March 1 and began work on rewiring BTF's office to facilitate the new computer system. In the process of installing the new cabling for the network, a CI technician accidentally rewired the system that controlled the fire sprinklers and rendered the sprinklers inoperable. Office Cleaners Inc. (OC) was cleaning BTF's offices at night on March 2. One of OC's employees left a lit cigarette in one of BTF's restrooms. That night, as a result of the lit cigarette, a small fire began in the restroom. Because the sprinklers were inoperable, the fire spread and caused damage to the entire office and equipment in the amount of $50,000. 1. Which of the following statements best describes the liability of CI and OC for the damages to the business premises of BTF? a. CI owes BTF a special duty to act to install the wiring in such as a way as to render the fire sprinklers inoperable. b. OC owes BTF a special duty to act carefully in cleaning BTF's offices at night. c. OC's employee's carelessness in leaving a lit cigarette in BTF's restroom is a superseding cause making OC liable for all of the damages to BTF's business premises. d. CI's carelessness in installing the wiring for the new computer network and OC's carelessness in leaving a lit cigarette in BTF's restroom are concurrent causes of the damages to BTF's business premises, and each is liable for the proportion of damages their respective negligent conduct proximately caused. e. OC is the actual cause, but not the proximate cause, of the damages to BTF's business premises. 2. Assume that BTF had fired their night security guard on February 1 and never replaced the position. Thus, no guard was present when the fire started. Which of the following statements best describes the liability of CI and OC for the damages to BTF's business premises. a. BTF's failure to hire a security guard constitutes comparative negligence which reduces OC's and CI's liability for the damages to the business premises by the percentage of the injured party's liability as determined by the fact finder. b. BTF's failure to hire a security guard provides both OC and CI with the complete defense of assumption of the risk. c. BTF's failure to hire a security guard is a supervening, proximate cause which discharges OC and CI of liability for the damages to BTF's business premises. d. BTF has failed to fulfill its duties to its invitees and licensees to make the premises safe. e. BTF's failure to hire a security guard is negligence per se. Suppose that after the incident the sales manager of Data Management Inc., one of CI's competitors, is having lunch with Sheldon, the chief information officer of City Hospital. City Hospital had an existing contract with CI to maintain City Hospital's network. During lunch, Data Management's sales manager tells Sheldon about the fire incident and also states that, based on his personal knowledge, CI was a shoddy outfit that had a poor reputation in the industry. The sales manager then proposed a new Data Management information system for City Hospital at a lower price than CI, When Sheldon was reluctant to consider the offer, Data Management's sales manager offered to pay out any penalty that City Hospital suffered as a result of canceling the CI contract. Sheldon cancels the contract with CI citing customer service problems. What possible torts were committed? What are the requirements for CI to recover damages? a. Data Management's manager's statements about CI constitutes libel, because the statements were false, were communicated to a third party, and are injurious to CI's reputation. b. Data Management's conduct in offering a financial incentive to City Hospital to break their contract with CI constitutes tortuous interference with prospective advantage. c. Data Management's conduct in offering a financial incentive to City Hospital to break their contract with CI constitutes interference with contractual relations, because the facts demonstrate Data Management had specific knowledge of City Hospital's contract with CI. d. If City Hospital accepts Data Management's offer to pay any penalty (such as litigation costs, attorney's fees, and damage awards) that City Hospital suffers as a result of canceling the CI contract is an illegal bargain. e. Both d and e