the holding of Triathlon Training Inc. accountable for the death of the child
Many legal matters were breached in this case. To begin with, there is a breach of the fiduciary duty concerning the company, which was done by Vance Armstrong. We also see a failure in the responsibility of the company towards the prevention of its visitors from suffering from accidents. Regarding the company’s Act, we find that the director, as well as the sole incorporator, was required to act according to the interest of the company, which also demanded that all reports should be given concerning the profits that were experienced outside the company through the company’s facilities (Hendershot, 2016).
Parents are likely to be successful through this case in the holding of Triathlon Training Inc. accountable for the death of the child. The company should be responsible for the protection of the visitors and any other person within the company premises from any form of injuries that may result from activities or events in the company. Being a training corporation demands that the company should have set up firm measures that would minimize as well as monitor cases that may have resulted in drowning (Sebok, 2011). Moreover, children with disabilities ought not to have been trained under similar situations as other children to keep them aware of the dangers and equip them with skills to protect them. They require special treatment with specialized trainers. The company should have special facilities for special needs children and a perfect trainer to be in charger of them and ensure that there is maximum safety around the pool (Bagley, 2015). Therefore, Triathlon Training Inc. is guilty of the death of the child and should be accountable for the same. Death is a result of negligence in the duties and roles of the company towards the protection of the children and watching over those with disabilities. Parents should ensure that they cite negligence to hold Vance Armstrong liable for the cost of the damage. Vance serves as the sole incorporator of the company, which is a corporation that is meant to carry out operations on the training of triathletes of all ages. This makes him responsible for the death of the child because it was his duty to place rightful measures that would prevent injuries and accidents from occurring around the pool. The negligence of the company is counted on him, and he should have understood the risks to come up with a measure to prevent them from occurring.
Armstrong could have prevented the damage from occurring and protected himself from any responsibilities of the damages through the employment of enough training attendants to work at the pool. He should also have provided keen attention to disabled people as well as young children because of their vulnerability to injuries and accidents in the pool (Goldberg JCP. 2008). Individuals visiting the pool should not have been left to carry out training on their own instead ensure that any activities in the pool would have taken place in the strict guidance of an instructor who gives instructions where necessary (Bagley, 2015). Therefore, Vance is responsible for paying for the damages caused. He should have also taken liability insurance that would have protected him against any potential liability at the outset.
Scenario III
Gus Mason, Mooney, Olive Green, and Maggie Mason were involved in insider trading. The case presents that Maggie Mason served as the true culprit because he was involved in the passing of potential information to the market of the company. This means that she will face charges over the passing of crucial information that served as a secret to the company through the securities and exchange commission according to the exchange act of 1934 (Bagley, 2015). Gus Mason will strongly face the security act because of being a beneficiary in the leaking of the information alongside Maggie Mason.
These individuals took part in the insider training and are meant to face prosecution regarding the charges that are set up by the lawn mentioned above.
The conduct performed by the individuals was not ethical because of their involvement in the clicking of the machine information for the organization that was not taken lightly but considered with much attention. This action should be considered as the leaking of information and a fraudulent act within the company, which is regarded as an unethical activity that should be dealt with immediately through punishment.
References
Bagley, C.E. (2015). Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st Century (8th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. ISBN: 9781285860374
Goldberg JCP. (2008). Ten Half-Truths About Tort Law. Valparaiso University Law Review.
Hendershot, S. M. (2016). Boards Beware Delaware “garners” support for a fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege in Section 220 suits. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 40(2), 677-704.
Sebok, A. (2011). What is Wrong with Wrongdoing. Florida State University Law Review