Booker v. Mejores Tacos

After purchasing land near a small shopping center in Macon, Georgia in April of 2006, Mejores Tacos, Inc. built a restaurant that it opened later that year. Since its opening nearly 17 years ago, Mejores Tacos has been a favorite for locals, serving the best Mexican cuisine in Macon. Every evening their tables are packed with hungry families and friends. Their business has had such success that they are in the process of opening a second location in Atlanta.

Mejores Tacos is also a big supporter of their local youth, hiring most of its servers and bussers from nearby high schools. Randy Silverstein was one such student whom Mejores Tacos hired for its Macon restaurant in August of 2022. At the time he was hired, Randy was 16 years old and had no prior experience as a server, but he was enthusiastic about the new job. The restaurant trained him with a supervisor for two days before allowing him to complete tasks on his own.

The most popular item on the Mejores Tacos menu is their Classic Tacos Combo. Two weeks after starting his new position at Mejores Tacos, Randy was carrying a Classic Tacos Combo to a hungry patron when he bumped into another server just outside the kitchen. The jostle from the collision in the dimly lit hallway sent the plate crashing to the floor, spilling food in front of the doors to the restrooms.

It was in the middle of the Friday night dinner rush, so Randy quickly picked up the plate, scooped up some of the tortillas and refried beans that had spilled, and went to the kitchen to place a new order of the tacos. He made a mental note to clean up the remaining food left on the floor. Unfortunately, the rush of the restaurant made Randy completely forget about the accident, and the spill stayed on the floor.

Approximately ten to fifteen minutes later, Ronda Booker, an elderly patron at the restaurant, was on her way to the ladies room when she slipped on the spilled Classic Tacos Combo. She fell and broke her hip. Mejores Tacos immediately called 911 and an ambulance transported Ms. Booker to the nearest hospital, where she had surgery to stabilize her hip. A few days later her condition worsened; she suffered from a very high fever (104 degrees) and convulsions. Doctors determined that she had contracted MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), a serious and potentially fatal antibiotic-resistant staph infection.

Booker spent more than a week in the hospital (four days in the intensive care unit or ICU) before being discharged to Davis Rehab and Physical Therapy Center for an additional 8 weeks of inpatient care and physical therapy. She also continued to receive an aggressive treatment of intravenous (IV) antibiotics for her MRSA infection.

In early November, Ms. Booker finally returned to her home. Even with physical therapy, she now requires a walker to get around. After talking with her daughter, an attorney, Ronda filed a lawsuit in a Georgia state court, alleging that Mejores Tacoss negligence in failing to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe caused her injuries. Georgias premises liability statute holds that landowners owe a different standard of care owed to invitees and licensees.

In O.C.G.A. 51-3-1 (2021), Georgia specifies the duty of an owner or occupier of land to invitees:

Where an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.

In O.C.G.A. 51-3-2 (2021), Georgia specifies the duty an owner of land owes to licensees:

a. A licensee is a person who:

1. Is neither a customer, a servant, nor a trespasser;
2. Does not stand in any contractual relation with the owner of the premises; and
3. Is permitted, expressly or impliedly, to go on the premises merely for his own interests, convenience, or gratification.

b. The owner of the premises is liable to a licensee only for willful or wanton injury.

Directions: Using the FIRAC model, evaluate Rondas premises liability claim against Mejores Tacos. Make sure that you discuss whether Ronda Booker is an invitee or licensee, the duty the restaurant owed her, and whether the hazard caused by the spilled food was an open and obvious danger such that the Majores Tacos would not need to warn restaurant patrons.—————————————————————-

FIRAC Paper Directions

Because this is your first FIRAC paper, Im going to give you more guidance than youll receive later in the semester when you have more experience using the FIRAC model both to analyze the legal issues and to structure your paper.

While this paper raises many potential legal issues, I want you to concentrate exclusively on whether a New York state court has personal jurisdiction over End Zone, an out-of-state corporation. You’ll find all the legal rules you need to analyze the scenario in my lectures and other posted course materials — you do NOT and should NOT attempt to research this legal issue online. In addition,

What TO Discuss:

• DO discuss whether Ronda Booker classifies as an invitee or a licensee under the provided Georgia statutes (O.C.G.A. 51-3-1 and 51-3-2).
• DO discuss the specific duty of care Mejores Tacos owed to Ronda based on her legal status on the property.
• DO discuss whether the spilled food constituted an open and obvious danger, specifically analyzing how the environmental factors (dim lighting, busy Friday night rush) impact the restaurant’s duty to warn.

What NOT to Discuss:

• Do NOT discuss medical malpractice or whether the hospital is legally at fault for Ronda contracting MRSA. You should assume that if the restaurant is liable for the fall, they are liable for the subsequent, foreseeable medical complications.
• Do NOT discuss child labor laws or the fact that Randy was 16 years old. His age is not the legal issue here.
• Do NOT discuss negligent training or negligent hiring. While the prompt mentions Randy only had two days of training, your analysis must focus strictly on the premises liability statutes provided, not employment law.
• Do NOT discuss vicarious liability or respondeat superior in depth. Simply assume that because Randy was an employee acting on the job, his negligence is legally imputed to Mejores Tacos.
• Do NOT discuss the calculation of damages. You are deciding whether Mejores Tacos is liable for the injury, not determining the dollar amount Ronda should be awarded for her hospital stays or physical therapy.

And no outside resources

Criteria	Excellent	Good	Satisfactory	Poor	Fail	Criterion Score
FACTS	10 points Accurate, concise, and well written summary of all material facts necessary to analyze the scenario. Written in your own words without heavily relying on the wording of the facts in the scenario.	8 points Most material facts are mentioned, but the statement simply repeated the prompt or missed facts that were mentioned later in the analysis (application section).	6 points The facts of the case are summarized, but the student did not detail many of the facts that are later used in the application (e.g. analysis of how the rules apply to the facts).	4 points Facts stated are too general and vague to demonstrate that the student actually viewed and understood the content.	0 points Paper did not have a statement of facts or missed material facts that change the analysis.	Score of FACTS, / 10
ISSUE(S)	10 points Accurate, well written issue statement that correctly spots the legal issue(s) within the assignment AND incorporates some of the material facts.	9 points Well written issue statement, and attempted to incorporate many of the material facts.	7 points Issue statement is present but misses some aspect of the issue or does not correctly identify the legal issue(s).	5 points Issue statement is present, but is too vague or broad to correctly identify a particular legal issue	0 points Issue statement is not present.	Score of ISSUE(S), / 10
RULE(S)	25 points Correctly identifies and explains the appropriate legal rule(s), any subparts, and exceptions.	20 points Correct statement of rule(s), but also discusses legal rules that are not necessary to resolving the issue.	15 points Rule statement is present but omits important exceptions or subparts of the rule OR if there are two legal rules, only explains one and/or lists its elements, not both.	10 points Rule statement is present but is incorrect or too vague to be correctly applied to the facts of the scenario.	0 points Rule statement is not present or is directly contrary to the actual rule.	Score of RULE(S), / 25
APPLICATION(S)	30 points Comprehensive and clear analysis of ALL the relevant legal rules and their application to the facts to support logical arguments about how the issue(s) will be resolved.	25 points Applies most of the relevant rule(s), including exceptions and subparts to the facts, but overlooks one or more important aspect of the rule(s).	20 points Applies the rules to the facts of the scenario, but misses or misstates the relationship between the rule and the facts so that the arguments aren’t clear or are incomplete.	10 points Analysis is present but does not offer a relationship between the rule and the facts or is too vague to arrive at any meaningful resolution.	0 points Analysis is not present or is so removed from the stated rules or facts as to not be useful	Score of APPLICATION(S), / 30
CONCLUSION(S)	5 points Succinct, well written conclusion that explicitly addresses the issue and indicates reasons (from analysis) that make this conclusion seem inevitable.	4 points Generally well written and supported by of the analysis, but does not state a clear and decisive resolution of the issues.	3 points Has a clear relationship to the issue and the following analysis but misses important considerations or does not follow from the arguments presented.	2 points Conclusion is present but does not have a clear relationship to the preceding analysis or seems partially contrary to that analysis.	0 points Conclusion is not present or so deviates from the analysis as to not be meaningful.	Score of CONCLUSION(S), / 5
WRITING: Style and Conventions	15 points Student followed all instructions re double-spacing, etc and included word count at end. Quality writing in narrative form, using paragraphs and complete sentences (not bulleted lists), Contains correct grammar and spelling. Style is readable, sentences are easily understood, and writing adds to the overall quality of the paper.	13 points Quality writing in narrative form, using paragraphs and complete sentences (not bulleted lists), Contains correct grammar and spelling. Style is readable, sentences are easily understood, and writing adds to the overall quality of the paper, but student didn’t double-space paper, use appropriate paragraphs, and/or include word count at end (e.g., didn’t follow instructions).	12 points Clear writing and readable style, but writing doesn’t enhance the quality of the paper and/or there are some grammatical or spelling errors present that careful proofreading should have detected.	10 points No significant grammatical or spelling errors but lacked quality writing, organization and/or style, which made it more difficult to follow and understand OR had appropriate style, but detracting grammatical or spelling errors.	5 points Awkward syntax, inappropriate word usage, and/or significant grammatical and spelling errors made the writing difficult to understand.	Score of WRITING: Style and Conventions, / 15
WRITING: Organization (follows the FIRAC model)	5 points Without the use of headings or other markers, crafted an essay that followed the FIRAC model.	4 points Mostly followed FIRAC, but tended to blend rules and application (or other sections) which would make it harder for the reader to understand.	3 points Used headings to move from one component to the next instead of transitions to indicate shift within narrative essay format.	2 points Didn’t clearly follow FIRAC consistently, but bounced between facts and issues, or rules and applications, or blended multiple sections, etc.	0 points It was difficult to tell from the essay whether the author made any attempt to use FIRAC to organize the paper.	Score of WRITING: Organization (follows the FIRAC model), / 5

• F – Facts: The relevant background information of the case, outlining what happened.
• I – Issue: The specific legal question that needs to be answered, derived from the facts.
• R – Rule: The applicable law (statute, precedent, etc.) that governs the issue.
• A – Analysis (or Application): The reasoning, explaining how the rule applies to the specific facts to reach a decision.
• C – Conclusion: The final outcome or holding of the case, answering the issue.

avoid legal conclusion in the fact section

Try not to add facts that are not given.

No outside research is permitted.

No outside research is permitted.

No outside research is permitted.

No outside research is permitted.

This program features the origins of sanctuary, which began in the 1980’s in response to the US shutting its doors to Central American refugees and asylum seekers.

Today there are similar forms of resistance, but also more sophisticated means of dismantling such movements of resistance. In a 1-2 page reflection, comment on any of the below topics;

(1) What lessons does the early origins of sanctuary offer to movements of resistance today?

(2) What are your views of resistance? Are they exercises in religious freedom or something else?

Listen to this podcast first!

1. Introduction

What is the problem? (the topic you are researching)

Why do you think it is important?

How widespread

Is it local, state, national or regional/ international problem

1. Body

Who/group/area is most affected and why

What is the Government or governing authorities doing about it.

Is it working, if not, why not

1. Conclusion –

Your scholarly recommendation

What should be done how and when – (factual and specific)- NOT YOUR OPINION

1. Bibliography (not less than 5 sources that MUST include mostly Articles and books)

Please follow the collegiate rules of writing found in ‘style’ manuals, be it Chicago, APA, or MLA.

1. Number of pages, 4-8 pages, double space, 12 font. Due April 26.

“What is the difference between criminal law and civil law, and how is it applied in everyday life?

One of the chief functions of a constitution is to protect the liberty of the people who live under it. But not all peoples, or individuals, understand liberty in the same way. Detail the understanding of liberty generally accepted by one of the four English subcultures which David Hackett Fischer identified as having shaped early American culture. What is revealed by his treatments of these cultures about the way liberty and community, or liberty and authority, have been related in the American experience? In what ways are these earlier understandings of liberty similar to or different from liberty as Americans understand it today? In what ways do these earlier understandings of the relationship between liberty and community/authority raise questions regarding the way we understand this relationship today?

1 : President

2: prime minister.

3: law ministery of law

4: chief secretary

Booker v. Mejores Tacos

After purchasing land near a small shopping center in Macon, Georgia in April of 2006, Mejores Tacos, Inc. built a restaurant that it opened later that year. Since its opening nearly 17 years ago, Mejores Tacos has been a favorite for locals, serving the best Mexican cuisine in Macon. Every evening their tables are packed with hungry families and friends. Their business has had such success that they are in the process of opening a second location in Atlanta.

Mejores Tacos is also a big supporter of their local youth, hiring most of its servers and bussers from nearby high schools. Randy Silverstein was one such student whom Mejores Tacos hired for its Macon restaurant in August of 2022. At the time he was hired, Randy was 16 years old and had no prior experience as a server, but he was enthusiastic about the new job. The restaurant trained him with a supervisor for two days before allowing him to complete tasks on his own.

The most popular item on the Mejores Tacos menu is their Classic Tacos Combo. Two weeks after starting his new position at Mejores Tacos, Randy was carrying a Classic Tacos Combo to a hungry patron when he bumped into another server just outside the kitchen. The jostle from the collision in the dimly lit hallway sent the plate crashing to the floor, spilling food in front of the doors to the restrooms.

It was in the middle of the Friday night dinner rush, so Randy quickly picked up the plate, scooped up some of the tortillas and refried beans that had spilled, and went to the kitchen to place a new order of the tacos. He made a mental note to clean up the remaining food left on the floor. Unfortunately, the rush of the restaurant made Randy completely forget about the accident, and the spill stayed on the floor.

Approximately ten to fifteen minutes later, Ronda Booker, an elderly patron at the restaurant, was on her way to the ladies room when she slipped on the spilled Classic Tacos Combo. She fell and broke her hip. Mejores Tacos immediately called 911 and an ambulance transported Ms. Booker to the nearest hospital, where she had surgery to stabilize her hip. A few days later her condition worsened; she suffered from a very high fever (104 degrees) and convulsions. Doctors determined that she had contracted MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), a serious and potentially fatal antibiotic-resistant staph infection.

Booker spent more than a week in the hospital (four days in the intensive care unit or ICU) before being discharged to Davis Rehab and Physical Therapy Center for an additional 8 weeks of inpatient care and physical therapy. She also continued to receive an aggressive treatment of intravenous (IV) antibiotics for her MRSA infection.

In early November, Ms. Booker finally returned to her home. Even with physical therapy, she now requires a walker to get around. After talking with her daughter, an attorney, Ronda filed a lawsuit in a Georgia state court, alleging that Mejores Tacoss negligence in failing to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe caused her injuries. Georgias premises liability statute holds that landowners owe a different standard of care owed to invitees and licensees.

In O.C.G.A. 51-3-1 (2021), Georgia specifies the duty of an owner or occupier of land to invitees:

Where an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.

In O.C.G.A. 51-3-2 (2021), Georgia specifies the duty an owner of land owes to licensees:

a. A licensee is a person who:

1. Is neither a customer, a servant, nor a trespasser;
2. Does not stand in any contractual relation with the owner of the premises; and
3. Is permitted, expressly or impliedly, to go on the premises merely for his own interests, convenience, or gratification.

b. The owner of the premises is liable to a licensee only for willful or wanton injury.

Directions: Using the FIRAC model, evaluate Rondas premises liability claim against Mejores Tacos. Make sure that you discuss whether Ronda Booker is an invitee or licensee, the duty the restaurant owed her, and whether the hazard caused by the spilled food was an open and obvious danger such that the Majores Tacos would not need to warn restaurant patrons.—————————————————————-

FIRAC Paper Directions

Because this is your first FIRAC paper, Im going to give you more guidance than youll receive later in the semester when you have more experience using the FIRAC model both to analyze the legal issues and to structure your paper.

While this paper raises many potential legal issues, I want you to concentrate exclusively on whether a New York state court has personal jurisdiction over End Zone, an out-of-state corporation. You’ll find all the legal rules you need to analyze the scenario in my lectures and other posted course materials — you do NOT and should NOT attempt to research this legal issue online. In addition,

What TO Discuss:

• DO discuss whether Ronda Booker classifies as an invitee or a licensee under the provided Georgia statutes (O.C.G.A. 51-3-1 and 51-3-2).
• DO discuss the specific duty of care Mejores Tacos owed to Ronda based on her legal status on the property.
• DO discuss whether the spilled food constituted an open and obvious danger, specifically analyzing how the environmental factors (dim lighting, busy Friday night rush) impact the restaurant’s duty to warn.

What NOT to Discuss:

• Do NOT discuss medical malpractice or whether the hospital is legally at fault for Ronda contracting MRSA. You should assume that if the restaurant is liable for the fall, they are liable for the subsequent, foreseeable medical complications.
• Do NOT discuss child labor laws or the fact that Randy was 16 years old. His age is not the legal issue here.
• Do NOT discuss negligent training or negligent hiring. While the prompt mentions Randy only had two days of training, your analysis must focus strictly on the premises liability statutes provided, not employment law.
• Do NOT discuss vicarious liability or respondeat superior in depth. Simply assume that because Randy was an employee acting on the job, his negligence is legally imputed to Mejores Tacos.
• Do NOT discuss the calculation of damages. You are deciding whether Mejores Tacos is liable for the injury, not determining the dollar amount Ronda should be awarded for her hospital stays or physical therapy.

And no outside resources

Criteria	Excellent	Good	Satisfactory	Poor	Fail	Criterion Score
FACTS	10 points Accurate, concise, and well written summary of all material facts necessary to analyze the scenario. Written in your own words without heavily relying on the wording of the facts in the scenario.	8 points Most material facts are mentioned, but the statement simply repeated the prompt or missed facts that were mentioned later in the analysis (application section).	6 points The facts of the case are summarized, but the student did not detail many of the facts that are later used in the application (e.g. analysis of how the rules apply to the facts).	4 points Facts stated are too general and vague to demonstrate that the student actually viewed and understood the content.	0 points Paper did not have a statement of facts or missed material facts that change the analysis.	Score of FACTS, / 10
ISSUE(S)	10 points Accurate, well written issue statement that correctly spots the legal issue(s) within the assignment AND incorporates some of the material facts.	9 points Well written issue statement, and attempted to incorporate many of the material facts.	7 points Issue statement is present but misses some aspect of the issue or does not correctly identify the legal issue(s).	5 points Issue statement is present, but is too vague or broad to correctly identify a particular legal issue	0 points Issue statement is not present.	Score of ISSUE(S), / 10
RULE(S)	25 points Correctly identifies and explains the appropriate legal rule(s), any subparts, and exceptions.	20 points Correct statement of rule(s), but also discusses legal rules that are not necessary to resolving the issue.	15 points Rule statement is present but omits important exceptions or subparts of the rule OR if there are two legal rules, only explains one and/or lists its elements, not both.	10 points Rule statement is present but is incorrect or too vague to be correctly applied to the facts of the scenario.	0 points Rule statement is not present or is directly contrary to the actual rule.	Score of RULE(S), / 25
APPLICATION(S)	30 points Comprehensive and clear analysis of ALL the relevant legal rules and their application to the facts to support logical arguments about how the issue(s) will be resolved.	25 points Applies most of the relevant rule(s), including exceptions and subparts to the facts, but overlooks one or more important aspect of the rule(s).	20 points Applies the rules to the facts of the scenario, but misses or misstates the relationship between the rule and the facts so that the arguments aren’t clear or are incomplete.	10 points Analysis is present but does not offer a relationship between the rule and the facts or is too vague to arrive at any meaningful resolution.	0 points Analysis is not present or is so removed from the stated rules or facts as to not be useful	Score of APPLICATION(S), / 30
CONCLUSION(S)	5 points Succinct, well written conclusion that explicitly addresses the issue and indicates reasons (from analysis) that make this conclusion seem inevitable.	4 points Generally well written and supported by of the analysis, but does not state a clear and decisive resolution of the issues.	3 points Has a clear relationship to the issue and the following analysis but misses important considerations or does not follow from the arguments presented.	2 points Conclusion is present but does not have a clear relationship to the preceding analysis or seems partially contrary to that analysis.	0 points Conclusion is not present or so deviates from the analysis as to not be meaningful.	Score of CONCLUSION(S), / 5
WRITING: Style and Conventions	15 points Student followed all instructions re double-spacing, etc and included word count at end. Quality writing in narrative form, using paragraphs and complete sentences (not bulleted lists), Contains correct grammar and spelling. Style is readable, sentences are easily understood, and writing adds to the overall quality of the paper.	13 points Quality writing in narrative form, using paragraphs and complete sentences (not bulleted lists), Contains correct grammar and spelling. Style is readable, sentences are easily understood, and writing adds to the overall quality of the paper, but student didn’t double-space paper, use appropriate paragraphs, and/or include word count at end (e.g., didn’t follow instructions).	12 points Clear writing and readable style, but writing doesn’t enhance the quality of the paper and/or there are some grammatical or spelling errors present that careful proofreading should have detected.	10 points No significant grammatical or spelling errors but lacked quality writing, organization and/or style, which made it more difficult to follow and understand OR had appropriate style, but detracting grammatical or spelling errors.	5 points Awkward syntax, inappropriate word usage, and/or significant grammatical and spelling errors made the writing difficult to understand.	Score of WRITING: Style and Conventions, / 15
WRITING: Organization (follows the FIRAC model)	5 points Without the use of headings or other markers, crafted an essay that followed the FIRAC model.	4 points Mostly followed FIRAC, but tended to blend rules and application (or other sections) which would make it harder for the reader to understand.	3 points Used headings to move from one component to the next instead of transitions to indicate shift within narrative essay format.	2 points Didn’t clearly follow FIRAC consistently, but bounced between facts and issues, or rules and applications, or blended multiple sections, etc.	0 points It was difficult to tell from the essay whether the author made any attempt to use FIRAC to organize the paper.	Score of WRITING: Organization (follows the FIRAC model), / 5

avoid legal conclusion in the fact section

Try not to add facts that are not given.

No outside research is permitted.

No outside research is permitted.

No outside research is permitted.

No outside research is permitted.

Booker v. Mejores Tacos

After purchasing land near a small shopping center in Macon, Georgia in April of 2006, Mejores Tacos, Inc. built a restaurant that it opened later that year. Since its opening nearly 17 years ago, Mejores Tacos has been a favorite for locals, serving the best Mexican cuisine in Macon. Every evening their tables are packed with hungry families and friends. Their business has had such success that they are in the process of opening a second location in Atlanta.

Mejores Tacos is also a big supporter of their local youth, hiring most of its servers and bussers from nearby high schools. Randy Silverstein was one such student whom Mejores Tacos hired for its Macon restaurant in August of 2022. At the time he was hired, Randy was 16 years old and had no prior experience as a server, but he was enthusiastic about the new job. The restaurant trained him with a supervisor for two days before allowing him to complete tasks on his own.

The most popular item on the Mejores Tacos menu is their Classic Tacos Combo. Two weeks after starting his new position at Mejores Tacos, Randy was carrying a Classic Tacos Combo to a hungry patron when he bumped into another server just outside the kitchen. The jostle from the collision in the dimly lit hallway sent the plate crashing to the floor, spilling food in front of the doors to the restrooms.

It was in the middle of the Friday night dinner rush, so Randy quickly picked up the plate, scooped up some of the tortillas and refried beans that had spilled, and went to the kitchen to place a new order of the tacos. He made a mental note to clean up the remaining food left on the floor. Unfortunately, the rush of the restaurant made Randy completely forget about the accident, and the spill stayed on the floor.

Approximately ten to fifteen minutes later, Ronda Booker, an elderly patron at the restaurant, was on her way to the ladies room when she slipped on the spilled Classic Tacos Combo. She fell and broke her hip. Mejores Tacos immediately called 911 and an ambulance transported Ms. Booker to the nearest hospital, where she had surgery to stabilize her hip. A few days later her condition worsened; she suffered from a very high fever (104 degrees) and convulsions. Doctors determined that she had contracted MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus), a serious and potentially fatal antibiotic-resistant staph infection.

Booker spent more than a week in the hospital (four days in the intensive care unit or ICU) before being discharged to Davis Rehab and Physical Therapy Center for an additional 8 weeks of inpatient care and physical therapy. She also continued to receive an aggressive treatment of intravenous (IV) antibiotics for her MRSA infection.

In early November, Ms. Booker finally returned to her home. Even with physical therapy, she now requires a walker to get around. After talking with her daughter, an attorney, Ronda filed a lawsuit in a Georgia state court, alleging that Mejores Tacoss negligence in failing to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe caused her injuries. Georgias premises liability statute holds that landowners owe a different standard of care owed to invitees and licensees.

In O.C.G.A. 51-3-1 (2021), Georgia specifies the duty of an owner or occupier of land to invitees:

Where an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.

In O.C.G.A. 51-3-2 (2021), Georgia specifies the duty an owner of land owes to licensees:

a. A licensee is a person who:

1. Is neither a customer, a servant, nor a trespasser;
2. Does not stand in any contractual relation with the owner of the premises; and
3. Is permitted, expressly or impliedly, to go on the premises merely for his own interests, convenience, or gratification.

b. The owner of the premises is liable to a licensee only for willful or wanton injury.

Directions: Using the FIRAC model, evaluate Rondas premises liability claim against Mejores Tacos. Make sure that you discuss whether Ronda Booker is an invitee or licensee, the duty the restaurant owed her, and whether the hazard caused by the spilled food was an open and obvious danger such that the Majores Tacos would not need to warn restaurant patrons.—————————————————————-

FIRAC Paper Directions

Because this is your first FIRAC paper, Im going to give you more guidance than youll receive later in the semester when you have more experience using the FIRAC model both to analyze the legal issues and to structure your paper.

While this paper raises many potential legal issues, I want you to concentrate exclusively on whether a New York state court has personal jurisdiction over End Zone, an out-of-state corporation. You’ll find all the legal rules you need to analyze the scenario in my lectures and other posted course materials — you do NOT and should NOT attempt to research this legal issue online. In addition,

What TO Discuss:

• DO discuss whether Ronda Booker classifies as an invitee or a licensee under the provided Georgia statutes (O.C.G.A. 51-3-1 and 51-3-2).
• DO discuss the specific duty of care Mejores Tacos owed to Ronda based on her legal status on the property.
• DO discuss whether the spilled food constituted an open and obvious danger, specifically analyzing how the environmental factors (dim lighting, busy Friday night rush) impact the restaurant’s duty to warn.

What NOT to Discuss:

• Do NOT discuss medical malpractice or whether the hospital is legally at fault for Ronda contracting MRSA. You should assume that if the restaurant is liable for the fall, they are liable for the subsequent, foreseeable medical complications.
• Do NOT discuss child labor laws or the fact that Randy was 16 years old. His age is not the legal issue here.
• Do NOT discuss negligent training or negligent hiring. While the prompt mentions Randy only had two days of training, your analysis must focus strictly on the premises liability statutes provided, not employment law.
• Do NOT discuss vicarious liability or respondeat superior in depth. Simply assume that because Randy was an employee acting on the job, his negligence is legally imputed to Mejores Tacos.
• Do NOT discuss the calculation of damages. You are deciding whether Mejores Tacos is liable for the injury, not determining the dollar amount Ronda should be awarded for her hospital stays or physical therapy.

And no outside resources

Criteria	Excellent	Good	Satisfactory	Poor	Fail	Criterion Score
FACTS	10 points Accurate, concise, and well written summary of all material facts necessary to analyze the scenario. Written in your own words without heavily relying on the wording of the facts in the scenario.	8 points Most material facts are mentioned, but the statement simply repeated the prompt or missed facts that were mentioned later in the analysis (application section).	6 points The facts of the case are summarized, but the student did not detail many of the facts that are later used in the application (e.g. analysis of how the rules apply to the facts).	4 points Facts stated are too general and vague to demonstrate that the student actually viewed and understood the content.	0 points Paper did not have a statement of facts or missed material facts that change the analysis.	Score of FACTS, / 10
ISSUE(S)	10 points Accurate, well written issue statement that correctly spots the legal issue(s) within the assignment AND incorporates some of the material facts.	9 points Well written issue statement, and attempted to incorporate many of the material facts.	7 points Issue statement is present but misses some aspect of the issue or does not correctly identify the legal issue(s).	5 points Issue statement is present, but is too vague or broad to correctly identify a particular legal issue	0 points Issue statement is not present.	Score of ISSUE(S), / 10
RULE(S)	25 points Correctly identifies and explains the appropriate legal rule(s), any subparts, and exceptions.	20 points Correct statement of rule(s), but also discusses legal rules that are not necessary to resolving the issue.	15 points Rule statement is present but omits important exceptions or subparts of the rule OR if there are two legal rules, only explains one and/or lists its elements, not both.	10 points Rule statement is present but is incorrect or too vague to be correctly applied to the facts of the scenario.	0 points Rule statement is not present or is directly contrary to the actual rule.	Score of RULE(S), / 25
APPLICATION(S)	30 points Comprehensive and clear analysis of ALL the relevant legal rules and their application to the facts to support logical arguments about how the issue(s) will be resolved.	25 points Applies most of the relevant rule(s), including exceptions and subparts to the facts, but overlooks one or more important aspect of the rule(s).	20 points Applies the rules to the facts of the scenario, but misses or misstates the relationship between the rule and the facts so that the arguments aren’t clear or are incomplete.	10 points Analysis is present but does not offer a relationship between the rule and the facts or is too vague to arrive at any meaningful resolution.	0 points Analysis is not present or is so removed from the stated rules or facts as to not be useful	Score of APPLICATION(S), / 30
CONCLUSION(S)	5 points Succinct, well written conclusion that explicitly addresses the issue and indicates reasons (from analysis) that make this conclusion seem inevitable.	4 points Generally well written and supported by of the analysis, but does not state a clear and decisive resolution of the issues.	3 points Has a clear relationship to the issue and the following analysis but misses important considerations or does not follow from the arguments presented.	2 points Conclusion is present but does not have a clear relationship to the preceding analysis or seems partially contrary to that analysis.	0 points Conclusion is not present or so deviates from the analysis as to not be meaningful.	Score of CONCLUSION(S), / 5
WRITING: Style and Conventions	15 points Student followed all instructions re double-spacing, etc and included word count at end. Quality writing in narrative form, using paragraphs and complete sentences (not bulleted lists), Contains correct grammar and spelling. Style is readable, sentences are easily understood, and writing adds to the overall quality of the paper.	13 points Quality writing in narrative form, using paragraphs and complete sentences (not bulleted lists), Contains correct grammar and spelling. Style is readable, sentences are easily understood, and writing adds to the overall quality of the paper, but student didn’t double-space paper, use appropriate paragraphs, and/or include word count at end (e.g., didn’t follow instructions).	12 points Clear writing and readable style, but writing doesn’t enhance the quality of the paper and/or there are some grammatical or spelling errors present that careful proofreading should have detected.	10 points No significant grammatical or spelling errors but lacked quality writing, organization and/or style, which made it more difficult to follow and understand OR had appropriate style, but detracting grammatical or spelling errors.	5 points Awkward syntax, inappropriate word usage, and/or significant grammatical and spelling errors made the writing difficult to understand.	Score of WRITING: Style and Conventions, / 15
WRITING: Organization (follows the FIRAC model)	5 points Without the use of headings or other markers, crafted an essay that followed the FIRAC model.	4 points Mostly followed FIRAC, but tended to blend rules and application (or other sections) which would make it harder for the reader to understand.	3 points Used headings to move from one component to the next instead of transitions to indicate shift within narrative essay format.	2 points Didn’t clearly follow FIRAC consistently, but bounced between facts and issues, or rules and applications, or blended multiple sections, etc.	0 points It was difficult to tell from the essay whether the author made any attempt to use FIRAC to organize the paper.	Score of WRITING: Organization (follows the FIRAC model), / 5

Note

Try to avoid legal conclusion in the fact section (combining corp. and personal funds). Instead, state how she does it like how you did in the following sentence.

Try not to add facts that are not given.

Now that the term is almost complete, it’s time to combine what you’ve learned about ethics and the law and apply it to a particular situation.

On your own or with a partner, you will choose a journalism ethics case study from the at Santa Clara University (cases from other sources may be acceptable with instructor approval) and write up an in-depth analysis of that case, including a well-justified, suggested course of action for the individuals/organizations involved.

Your analysis and justification should include each stage of ethical decision making as represented in the Potter Box Model, and it should reference (and correctly cite in APA style) at least four secondary sources (beyond the case study itself), including appropriate ethical articles, professional codes of conduct, laws, legal decisions, and ethical theories as part of that analysis. For instance, you may decide to reference the SPJ code of ethics and the article we read by McBride & Rosenstiel in discussing the journalistic value of truthfulness.

The final case study should be a minimum of five, double-spaced pages (not including the References page) in essay format with a total of five sources (counting the case study itself) using properly formatted APA-style citations (in-text and references list). this is the link and case I have picked The document follows the assignment. The summary is complete, and the suggested course of action is well supported by appropriate and logical reasoning through the categories of analysis provided by the Potter Box Model, including accurate explanations and interpretations of relevant ethical principles and current statutory and/or common law.The essay effectively incorporates the required number of relevant and credible sources. The essay contains no grammatical, spelling, or mechanical errors. Its tone is appropriate for the situation, and the document is well-unified (flow between sentences & paragraphs). The document is carefully proofread, and the writing is clear and precise. The essay is effectively formatted and organized. Headings and subheadings are used effectively. Design elements, such as typeface and other textual treatments, are appropriate for the situation and help the reader easily navigate the document. References are properly cited in APA style.

my topic is Private Lives and Public Figures: Ethical Analysis Using the Potter Box

W5: Network Security Monitoring Processes

Network Security Monitoring Processes

Please look at the killing with keyboards file then answer the following questions in the context of the best practice concepts covered in chapter 11 and the security professional proficiencies covered in chapter 13. Identify what is at risk here, 5 possible threats and 5 vulnerabilities in this scenario. Analyze measures that could be taken to reduce the risks.

This assignment is a formative assessment for Course Objective 5.

Rubrics

Discussions

Please join the discussions each week. Students must post a reply to each weekly discussion and reply to at least 2 other students for each Discussion. This means that each week you should have 1 initial post and 2 responsive posts. Replies must be posted in the week due and replies after the end of the each week will not be graded. The Discussions are for student interaction and input should be submitted before the week ends in order to fully participate in the discussions. Students should demonstrate their own knowledge in the discussions and avoid copying and pasting from websites.

Guidelines:

• Post the initial response to each discussion by Wednesday. That will give your Classmates a chance to respond back to you.
• Initial responses are to be original in content and demonstrate a thorough analysis of the topic.
• Read your Classmates’ posts and respond to a minimum of two of them on Sunday. You are encouraged to participate in the discussion with your peers throughout the week.
• Responses to classmates are significant to advance the discussion.
• All discussions can be accessed in the Discussions section of the course.

Communicating on the Discussion

• Discussions are the heart of the interaction in this course. The more engaged and lively the exchanges, the more interesting and fun the course will be. Only substantive comments will receive credit. Although there is a final posting time after which the instructor will grade comments, it is not sufficient to wait until the last day to contribute your comments/questions on the discussion. The purpose of the discussions is to actively participate in an on-going discussion about the assigned content.
• Substantive means comments that contribute something new and hopefully important to the discussion. Thus a message that simply says I agree is not substantive. A substantive comment contributes a new idea or perspective, a good follow-up question to a point made, offers a response to a question, provides an example or illustration of a key point, points out an inconsistency in an argument, etc.
• As a class, if we run into conflicting view points, we must respect each individual’s own opinion. Hateful and hurtful comments towards other individuals, students, groups, peoples, and/or societies will not be tolerated.

For this assignment you will post your answers to the questions in each thread prior to 11:59 p.m. ET on Wednesday. You are required to respond to at least two of your classmates post by 11:59 on Sunday. Please do not be late with this post because your classmates will be relying on you to post on time. Your follow-up posts can add additional insight to a classmate’s opinions or can challenge their opinions. Use examples from the readings, or from your own research, to support your views, as appropriate. For your follow-up posts this week, you may wish to visit a couple of the web sites contributed by your classmates and share your opinion of these sites with the class. Be sure to read the follow-up posts to your own posts and reply to any questions or requests for clarification. You are encouraged to conduct research and use other sources to support your answers. Be sure to list your references at the end of your post. Peer responses will not be accepted after the due date.