Case Analysis

Formatting Notes:

Use font style Times New Roman size 12 with double spacing for all assignments and one inch margins on all sides.

Be thorough enough to answer each question, but also strive to be concise. All assignments should have an appropriate introduction, body, and conclusion. The page requirements for this assignment are 2-3 pages. Do not exceed 4 pages.

Use APA formatting for in-text citations and for your reference list in order to cite the textbook, the case study, and any outside sources. You must cite the textbook and at least one outside source. REMEMBER, ALL DIRECT QUOTES NEED PAGE NUMBERS IN THE IN-TEXT CITATION.

Use the information you have learned from the text (but make sure you are not directly copying and pasting sentences from the textbook or case without the use of quotation marks and proper APA formatting).

Title page, Tables, and References do not count toward your page limit.

Structure your paper in a manner that makes it easy to tell that you have addressed each part of the question. You must use headings for each section.

Please refer to the rubric for details on grading criteria.

APA quick reference:

Books: Authors. (Year of publication). Title of book, sentence style capitalization. Place of publication: Name of publisher.

Example (Reference Page): Rothaermel, F.T. (2021). Strategic Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education

Example (In-text Citation): Firms must be flexible and ready for change to adapt to factors outside of their control (Rothaermel, 2021).

Example (Direct Quote): “The firm’s response must be dynamic. Rather than creating a onetime and thus a static fit, the firm’s internal strengths need to change with its external environment in a dynamic fashion.” (Rothaermel, 2021, pg. 119).

*Reminder! Use direct quotes to enhance, not replace, your analysis! Notice how the in-text citation allows you to synthesize the information in the textbook in a concise manner and show greater levels of comprehension.

Websites: Authors/Name of Website. (Date of publication). Title of article. Retrieved from www.websitename.com

Example (Reference Page): Nike. (2021, April 12). Watch How Nike Refurbished Works. Retrieved from: https://news.nike.com/news/nike-refurbished-circularity-model

Example (In-text Citation): One of Nike’s sustainability projects includes refurbishing shoes (Nike, 2021).

Example (Direct Quote): “After a shopper returns a pair of shoes to Nike, Nike Refurbished tidies them up and then makes them a great value for Nike shoppers” (Nike, 2021, para 1).

*Notice how paraphrasing with a citation allows me to relate the information back to sustainability concepts more concisely!

For this assignment, you will need to read the case study assigned to this week and critically analyze it. You must cite the textbook and at least one outside source. The goals of these assignments are to encourage critical thinking and application of course material.

Assignment Requirements

One introductory paragraph. Introduce and summarize the case including the main challenges presented. This should be brief.

Write at least one paragraph for each of the following questions:

How is this case related to what we have learned so far?

You could include information such as how this case is related to this chapter and previous chapters; the ways different concepts, theories, and frameworks were applied; the ways different concepts, theories, and frameworks *should* have been applied if they were not, etc.

What should other organizations do to implement the ideas in this case?

You could include information such as lessons learned, examples of mistakes made, etc.

How can you personally use the information presented in this case?

You could include information about your personal life, professional life, career aspirations, etc.

One conclusion paragraph. Summarize your thoughts.

Rubric for written assignments

Note that each submission must be new material. Any form of plagiarism (i.e. copying and pasting from previous assignments from this class or another; copying and pasting directly from the textbook or another source without proper citations; submitting work completed by someone else; etc.) will result in a 0 for the assignment. Please see the West Texas A&M University Code of Student Life and the syllabus for more information.

Unsatisfactory

0 Points

Needs Improvement

1-2 Point

Satisfactory

3-4 Points

Formatting & APA Guidelines

The assignment uses an unacceptable document format or the assignment is extremely difficult to read or follow.

The assignment does not contain appropriate headings, subheadings, or other markers to make it easy to follow and/or has some formatting issues such as very long/short paragraphs, excessive bullet points, etc.

The assignment contains appropriate headings, subheading, or other markers which make it easy to follow, and the assignment contains concise indented paragraphs.

Thoroughness & Precision

Majority of questions are not addressed.

Some questions are not addressed/all questions are addressed but not addressed sufficiently or there are issues with application of book material or critical thinking to the case study.

All questions are addressed sufficiently and responses avoid unnecessary redundancy. Shows application of book material and critical thinking to the case study.

Grammar, Spelling, & Professionalism

Grammar is so poor that it is difficult to understand the assignment.

Grammar is adequate for conveying meaning but the paper contains grammatical or spelling errors and/or is not written in a professional tone.

The paper is free of grammatical and spelling errors and is written in a professional tone.

Critical Thinking

The responses do not demonstrate knowledge of relevant material and do not demonstrate critical/original thinking.

Responses demonstrate knowledge of relevant material but only limited critical/original thinking.

Responses demonstrate knowledge of relevant material and critical/original thinking. Student is able to integrate personal knowledge, current and previous course material, and textbook information to the relevant case study.

References

References are not included.

In-text citations are missing/the reference list is not included, or references are included but are formatted improperly, or there are no in-text references to relevant book material.

References are included where appropriate and formatted properly.

The post Case Analysis Formatting Notes: Use font style Times New Roman size 12 appeared first on PapersSpot.

Garratt v. Dailey, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955)

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the Pierce County Superior Court (Washington) entered upon findings in favor of defendant in an action for assault and battery.

OVERVIEW: Defendant, a child under the age of six, was visiting plaintiff’s adult sister at plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff alleged that she came out into the backyard to talk with sister and that, as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair, defendant deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that, due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity, he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time to prevent her from falling to the ground. Plaintiff fell to the ground and sustained injuries and damages. The trial court entered judgment for defendant. On appeal, the supreme court remanded for a determination of whether defendant knew that plaintiff would attempt to sit in the chair.

OUTCOME: Supreme court remanded for clarification, with instructions to make definite findings on the issue of whether defendant knew with substantial certainty that plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been, and to change the judgment if the court found that he had such knowledge.

JUDGES: Hill, J. Schwellenbach, Donworth, and Weaver, JJ., concur.

OPINION BY: HILL

OPINION

The liability of an infant for an alleged battery is presented to this court for the first time. Brian Dailey (age five years, nine months) was visiting with Naomi Garratt, an adult and a sister of the plaintiff, Ruth Garratt, likewise an adult, in the backyard of the plaintiff’s home, on July 16, 1951. It is plaintiff’s contention that she came out into the backyard to talk with Naomi and that, as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair, Brian deliberately pulled it out from under her. The only one of the three persons present so testifying was Naomi Garratt. The trial court, unwilling to accept this testimony, adopted instead Brian Dailey’s version of what happened, and made the following findings:

III. [T]hat while Naomi Garratt and Brian Dailey were in the back yard the plaintiff, Ruth Garratt, came out of her house into the back yard. Some time subsequent thereto defendant, Brian Dailey, picked up a lightly built wood and canvas lawn chair which was then and there located in the back yard of the above described premises, moved it sideways a few feet and seated himself therein, at which time he discovered the plaintiff, Ruth Garratt, about to sit down at the place where the lawn chair had formerly been, at which time he hurriedly got up from the chair and attempted to move it toward Ruth Garratt to aid her in sitting down in the chair; that due to the defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity he was unable to get the lawn chair under the plaintiff in time to prevent her from falling to the ground. That plaintiff fell to the ground and sustained a fracture of her hip, and other injuries and damages as hereinafter set forth.

IV. That the preponderance of the evidence in this case establishes that when the defendant, Brian Dailey, moved the chair in question he did not have any willful or unlawful purpose in doing so; that he did not have any intent to injure the plaintiff, or any intent to bring about any unauthorized or offensive contact with her person or any objects appurtenant thereto; that the circumstances which immediately preceded the fall of the plaintiff established that the defendant, Brian Dailey, did not have purpose, intent or design to perform a prank or to effect an assault and battery upon the person of the plaintiff.” (Italics ours, for a purpose hereinafter indicated.)

It is conceded that Ruth Garratt’s fall resulted in a fractured hip and other painful and serious injuries. To obviate the necessity of a retrial in the event this court determines that she was entitled to a judgment against Brian Dailey, the amount of her damage was found to be eleven thousand dollars. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing the action and asks for the entry of a judgment in that amount or a new trial.

The authorities generally, but with certain notable exceptions, state that, when a minor has committed a tort with force, he is liable to be proceeded against as any other person would be.

In our analysis of the applicable law, we start with the basic premise that Brian, whether five or fifty-five, must have committed some wrongful act before he could be liable for appellant’s injuries.

It is urged that Brian’s action in moving the chair constituted a battery. A definition (not all-inclusive but sufficient for our purpose) of a battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another.

We have in this case no question of consent or privilege. We therefore proceed to an immediate consideration of intent and its place in the law of battery. In the comment on clause (a), the Restatement says:

Character of actor’s intention. In order that an act may be done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to a particular person, either the other or a third person, the act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced.

We have here the conceded volitional act of Brian, i.e., the moving of a chair. Had the plaintiff proved to the satisfaction of the trial court that Brian moved the chair while she was in the act of sitting down, Brian’s action would patently have been for the purpose or with the intent of causing the plaintiff’s bodily contact with the ground, and she would be entitled to a judgment against him for the resulting damages.

The plaintiff based her case on that theory, and the trial court held that she failed in her proof and accepted Brian’s version of the facts rather than that given by the eyewitness who testified for the plaintiff. After the trial court determined that the plaintiff had not established her theory of a battery (i.e., that Brian had pulled the chair out from under the plaintiff while she was in the act of sitting down), it then became concerned with whether a battery was established under the facts as it found them to be.

In this connection, we quote another portion of the comment on the “Character of actor’s intention,” relating to clause (a) of the rule from the Restatement heretofore set forth:

It is not enough that the act itself is intentionally done and this, even though the actor realizes or should realize that it contains a very grave risk of bringing about the contact or apprehension. Such realization may make the actor’s conduct negligent or even reckless but unless he realizes that to a substantial certainty, the contact or apprehension will result, the actor has not that intention which is necessary to make him liable under the rule stated in this Section.

A battery would be established if, in addition to plaintiff’s fall, it was proved that, when Brian moved the chair, he knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair had been. If Brian had any of the intents which the trial court found, in the italicized portions of the findings of fact quoted above, that he did not have, he would of course have had the knowledge to which we have referred. The mere absence of any intent to injure the plaintiff or to play a prank on her or to embarrass her, or to commit an assault and battery on her would not absolve him from liability if in fact he had such knowledge. Without such knowledge, there would be nothing wrongful about Brian’s act in moving the chair, and, there being no wrongful act, there would be no liability.

While a finding that Brian had no such knowledge can be inferred from the findings made, we believe that before the plaintiff’s action in such a case should be dismissed there should be no question but that the trial court had passed upon that issue; hence, the case should be remanded for clarification of the findings to specifically cover the question of Brian’s knowledge, because intent could be inferred therefrom. If the court finds that he had such knowledge, the necessary intent will be established and the plaintiff will be entitled to recover, even though there was no purpose to injure or embarrass the plaintiff. If Brian did not have such knowledge, there was no wrongful act by him, and the basic premise of liability on the theory of a battery was not established.

It will be noted that the law of battery as we have discussed it is the law applicable to adults, and no significance has been attached to the fact that Brian was a child less than six years of age when the alleged battery occurred. The only circumstance where Brian’s age is of any consequence is in determining what he knew, and there his experience, capacity, and understanding are of course material.

From what has been said, it is clear that we find no merit in plaintiff’s contention that we can direct the entry of a judgment for eleven thousand dollars in her favor on the record now before us.

Nor do we find any error in the record that warrants a new trial.

The cause is remanded for clarification, with instructions to make definite findings on the issue of whether Brian Dailey knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been, and to change the judgment if the findings warrant it.

Remanded for clarification.

2

The post Garratt v. Dailey, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955) CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: appeared first on PapersSpot.

Review your problem or issue and the study materials to formulate a PICOT question for your capstone project change proposal. A PICOT question starts with a designated patient population in a particular clinical area and identifies clinical problems or issues that arise from clinical care. The intervention used to address the problem must be a nursing practice intervention. Include a comparison of the nursing intervention to a patient population not currently receiving the nursing intervention, and specify the timeframe needed to implement the change process.  Formulate a PICOT question using the PICOT format (provided in the assigned readings) that addresses the clinical nursing problem.
The PICOT question will provide a framework for your capstone project change proposal.
In a paper of 500-750 words, clearly identify the clinical problem and how it can result in a positive patient outcome.
Describe the problem in the PICOT question as it relates to the following:

Evidence-based solution
Nursing intervention
Patient care
Health care agency
Nursing practice

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. 
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.