Given the scenario, Sally's employer is still responsible for these reasons:
<em> A. Yes, because this type of incident falls under the OSH Act's General Duty Clause,
</em>
<em />
<em>B. Yes, because Larry did not follow safe work practices by rushing down the hall with the cart.</em>
The responsibility of Sally's employer does not end because the accident is not specifically addressed in the OSHA standards.
At least, the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act requires employers to provide safe work environments free from recognized present or future hazards.
Thus, Larry's action is a recognized hazard that could have been prevented from happening if wider hallways are built, for example.
Read more about Employer and Employee OSHA Responsibilities at brainly.com/question/20427532
<span>Simulation. It is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time. Simulation testing lays on the intersection of both property-based and example-based testing. It provides strong guarantees about externally-visible, client behavior. This is done in a controlled environment.</span>
Why should i ever care just kidding
What is my income. then subtract
what are my ordinary monthly expenses.
what is my weekly allowance.
what are my incidentals
what are my insurance and taxes going to be.
are these included in the mortgage.
allow 10% for tithing
clothing costs
medical copays.
do you get paid for sick days.
Answer:
Growth rate 2.4%
Explanation:
MV=D1/(Ke-g)
Where MV=share market value=$15
D1=Dividend at year end=$.72
Ke=stock's expected rate of return=7.2%
By putting above values in formula, we get;
MV=D1/(Ke-g)
15=.72/(7.2%-g)
15*7.2%-15g=.72
1.08-15g=.72
.72-1.08=-15g
g= -.36/-15
g=2.4%
