Ethics (as derived from Judiasm, Christianity and other religions) should be a cornerstone of an engineering school's educational program. Here, we expand that scope beyond religions to include Common and Civil Law. In addition to studying Ethics for character- building, one Accredidation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) requirement for accreditation of an Electrical Engineering or Computer Science Department is formal instruction in Ethics. Therefore, you should understand the Business Ethics Scenario is an important part of your training and your performance is heavily weighted in your final grade.
The paramount purpose of the Business Ethics Scenario Paper is to introduce you to the concept of Ethics as a formalized set of principles of correct conduct comprising a set of rules or standards governing the behavior of a person or members of a profession. This exercise is designed to help develop your analytic skills in understanding and applying ethics concepts to business problems. In addition to writing a paper, you will make an oral presentation which you will have to defend against your classmate's arguments.
In a very real sense, Ethics may be defined as a set of rules of behavior and expectations which individuals and groups can afford to practice. Your personal set is likely to differ from those of others - particularly when you do business across borders and continents. This is especially true on electronic networks where you never meet other parties to a transaction (hence, the lottery cases where ticket purchasers are not known to each other). Nevertheless, mankind has succeeded in codifying sets of rules under both religious and civil authorities and you must learn how to analyze and apply these rules if you want to be a successful engineering manager or entrepreneur.
A focal point of this exercise is to introduce you to the concept of the logical syllogism. The logical syllogism consists of three parts; namely,
As you will see in the example shown below, your paper should consist of exactly three paragraphs - one for each of these three parts. Each paragraph should have no less than two sentences nor more than eight sentences. No sentence or item in a list should contain more than about 40 words. Brevity and clarity are rewarded.
A major pitfall in constructing a logical syllogism is caused by students (and activist judges) in starting with a desired conclusion and then searching for a major premise and facts which support it. Be careful to avoid this trap. The hardest part of the exercise is to start with an identification of one or more correct Major Premises from amongst a large number of candidates.
A second source of mistake is caused by improper analysis of facts in the case. In general, case authors include unnecessary facts to distract you or state facts in a manner which cause you to draw improper inferences. Be careful to recite faithfully the facts which you consider pertinent and ignore the rest.
A third source of error is failure to conclude an argument with a rationale for a decision which follows from the Major and Minor Premises and then to reach a decision. Your Conclusion must affirmatively state a decision and your rationale for making that decision.
Farmer Johnson's land was crossed by a natural stream which provided water for his cattle and irrigation for his crops. Many years ago, beavers had built a dam by felling trees across the stream where it passed through a ravine on Johnson's land. A result was that an 18 foot deep pond was created in the ravine behind the dam. Johnson had considered removing the dam; but, found that it helped control Spring flooding of his land and that bass would feed in deep pools by the banks of the pond. Because Johnson liked to fish, he kept a small, very old wooden rowboat on the pond's shore. Since he didn't like his peace disturbed, he had surrounded his farm with a rail fence and posted No Trespassing, Hunting or Fishing signs along the fence.
Just beyond Johnson's farm and before it reached the pond, the stream passed underneath a small bridge on a public road leading to a recently built residential subdivision. Jane, a 5 year old, and her family had just moved into the subdivision during the Winter. At the first Spring thaw, Jane started wandering around to explore her new neighborhood and walked onto the bridge. From there, she could see the stream, the pond, the dam and Johnson's rowboat - which had been set partially afloat by the rising water in the pond. Jane scampered down from the bridge, crawled through the rails in Johnson's fence, ran past the No Trespassing signs, waded through the on-shore mud and pulled herself into the boat.
Once in the boat, Jane used one of the oars to push the boat away from the shore and the boat began to drift into the pond. Unfortunately, mud which had been filling a small hole in the bottom of the bow dissolved and the rowboat began filling with very cold water. Jane panicked, fell out of the boat and drowned.
QUESTIONS:
Major Premise - The rule of law to be applied is the The Doctrine Of Attractive Nuisance. Under that doctrine a landowner is liable for death or injury providing all of the following criteria are met:
Minor Premise - Rowboats are man-made and a floating rowboat containing a hole plugged by mud is a hazard that cannot be readily comprehended by a child of tender years. A rowboat is likely to be attractive to some young children and in this case attracted a 5 year old girl who was able to see it from a bridge on a public road. The rowboat was reasonably accessible to her because a rail fence (as compared with a chain link fence) did not prevent the child from reaching the boat.
Conclusion - The facts of this case, as identified in the preceding paragraph, show that all of the requirements for liability under the Doctrine Of Attractive Nuisance have been fulfilled. Accordingly, my decision is that because he owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect children from man-made hazards they cannot appreciate or understand, Farmer Johnson is liable to Jane's parents for her death.
Major Premise - The rule of law to be applied is the The Doctrine Of Attractive Nuisance. Under that doctrine a landowner is liable for death or injury providing all of the following criteria are met:
Minor Premise - A pond with deep pools created by a dam built by beavers is not a man-made hazard -even though Farmer Johnson could have removed the dam and even though he enjoyed and profited from use of the pond. Rowboats are man-made and a floating rowboat containing a hole plugged by mud is a hazard that cannot be readily comprehended by a child of tender years. While a rowboat is likely to be attractive to some young children, in this case there is no evidence that it attracted Jane, a 5 year old girl, who was able to see it floating on the pond from a bridge on a public road. The pond was reasonably accessible to her because a rail fence (as compared with a chain link fence) did not prevent her from reaching the pond.
Conclusion - The facts of this case, as identified in the preceding paragraph, show that only four of the five of the requirements for liability under the Doctrine Of Attractive Nuisance have been fulfilled. While Farmer Johnson maintained a man-made hazard attractive to a child of tender years, there is no evidence that she was attracted by it. If there were evidence that Jane had been attracted to the pond by the presence of the rowboat, then I would be inclined to hold that there was liability even though the rowboat was not the proximate cause of death. However, my decision is that while he owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect children from man-made hazards they cannot appreciate or understand, Farmer Johnson is not liable to Jane's parents for her death caused by a naturally occurring hazard.
Your comments, questions and suggestions are appreciated.
Sheldon L. Epstein