The happy days day care is hiring a child care worker. on the employment application happy days specifically asks if the applica
nt has ever been arrested. tina applies for a job at happy days and answers no to that question. she also answers no to the question that asks if there is any reason that she would not be qualified to work with children. soon after tina is hired, she severely shakes a baby to stop it from crying, causing the baby injuries. it is discovered at trial that tina has been fired from numerous day cares for baby shaking and various other offenses. if the baby's parents sue happy days:
If the baby's parents sue happy days, they will be liable for: <span>negligent hiring The Happy days day care has proven to hire an incompetent worker without doing a thorough background check on him/her before the initial hire. (simply asking the applicant is insufficient) Their action has cause danger to the customers that may threaten their lives.</span>
Cindy Should distrust this persuasive appeal because not all the cats are same .In case of Rowena the cat might be hungry so she destroy the home out of hunger or may be she was injured and threatened by other animals .
So Cindy should distrust the persuasive appeal of Rowena as Rowena also don't know the condition of cat.
The allowance of the use of the second hand materials showed the materials met the standard required but this is subjective as the material life span has been shortened due to existing usage of the material.
