1. Facts from an English judge’s decision in 1884: “The crew of an English yacht … were cast away in a storm on the high seas … and were compelled to put into an open boat…. They had no supply of water and no supply of food…. That on the eighteenth day … they … suggested that one should be sacrificed to save the rest…. That next day … they … went to the boy … put a knife into his throat and killed him … the three men fed upon the body… of the boy for four days; [then] the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and [they] were rescued …. And committed for trial…. if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be so picked up and rescued, but would … have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker condition, was likely to have died before them…. The real question in this case [is] whether killing under the conditions set forth … be or be not murder.” Do you consider the acts to 20 Part 1: Elements of Law and the Judicial Process Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 be immoral? 

2. Smoking is a serious health hazard. Cigarettes are legal. Should cigarette manufacturers be liable for the serious illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their unavoidably dangerous products, even though they post a warning on the package and consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by smoking?

3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-trail bikes. The boys were riding on public streets, ran a stop sign, and were hit by a truck. The bikes had clear warning labels on the front stating they were only for off-road use. The manual stated the bikes were not to be used on public streets. The parents sued Honda. The supreme court of Washington said one basic issue existed: “Is a manufacturer liable when children are injured while riding one of its mini-trail bikes on a public road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it unethical to make products like mini-trail bikes children will use when we know accidents like this will happen?

4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age could not work in the battery-making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the battery operation could cause harm to unborn babies. The company was concerned about possible legal liability for injury suffered by babies of mothers who had worked in the battery division. The Supreme Court held the company policy was illegal. It was an “excuse for denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the Court forcing the company to be unethical by allowing pregnant women who ignore the warnings to expose their babies to the lead?

5. McGrory worked for Applied Signal Technology in a supervisory position. He was accused of violating the company’s policies on sexual harassment. An internal investigation determined he did not violate the policy but that he was evasive and violated the company’s personal ethics code. He was fired and sued for wrongful termination, contending that if he did not violate sexual harassment rules he should not have been subject to termination. Do standards of law and ethics need to be the same for an employer?

6. Baker works as a document clerk for the Minnesota Supreme Court. After she had worked there for 13 years the Minnesota Judicial Branch adopted a policy concerning proper Internet use and stated that employees must adhere to the highest ethical standards when using the Internet. Eleven years later, she was fired for excessive surfing on the Internet during working hours. She contended she did not know about the policy. Is that an adequate defense for her?