Bug Inc

In both cases intercept is liable for scorn and could indemnify compensatory and punitive damages. As an employer, BUG is bound to foster its employees. In the case of the marketer, BUG kitty be considered as owner of the land (dock) while the vendor is a licensee. As such, BUG has a commerce of ordinary care to the vendor. In falsification of a tort indebtedness filed by the vendor, BUG bear practise the assumption of risk as its defense. It is a fact that the town is experiencing a crime wave.Knowing that it was tiffin time, the vendor should claim simply just returned later on instead of waiting. Had the vendor done so, it could not have been robbed and the items to be delivered stolen. However, BUG great dealnot use the same defense against tort filed by employees. As employees, they are take in to report for work and go home after. BUG can merely use contributory negligence as a defense. BUG can use the fact that the parking lot was originally hearty lit.As emp loyees, they should have informed the company of the condition of the lights in the parking lot. Employees should also have updated the company on whether the lights were already fixed or not. 6) Sally can file negligence suit against BUG. BUG knew that an nonconductor could prevent shorts from happening but did not do so for business reasons. Sally can also file for misrepresentation since BUG go on to manufacture the product despite knowledge of a problem possibly occurring.Sally cannot file for strict liability since the product was not technically defective. Sally however can also file for failure to take to task since BUG should have informed its customers of the possibility of a short. Sally can request for compensatory damages, specifically everyday damages, since she actually suffered harm on her person. As a result of BUG not including the insulator intimate that it could prevent short, Sally can further ask for punitive damages.