7/29/2019 Meiners Chapter 5 Case Briefs

1/1

Rafique SheikhCWID: 893776708

MGMT 518: Legal and Ethical Environment of Business

Chapter 5 Case Briefs:

Commonwealth v. Angelo Todesca Corporation, pg. 121

Gauthier drove a dump truck full of asphalt for Angelo Todesca Corp. to a highwayconstruction site near a busy intersection. A police officer directing traffic was run overand killed as Gauthier backed up to deliver asphalt. The back-up horn on the truck wasnot working. Gauthier and Todesca knew horn wasnt working in violation of companysafety procedures. Gauthier was charged with driving offenses, he was fined and hisdriving was limited. Massachusetts charged Todesca w/vehicular homicide. The Juryconvicted company and fined $2,500. Appeals court reversed the conviction, the

Commonwealth appealed. The Commonwealth had to prove:

i) The individual whose conduct used to criminally charge corp. was placed in aposition by the corp.

ii) That Gauthier had power, duty, responsibility & authority to act on behalf ofcorporation for business he was doing.

iii) And that he committed a criminal act while acting for corporation.

Todesca claimed corporation cant be involved in motor vehicle homicide sincecorporation cannot operate a vehicle. The court held for the Commonwealth on thebasis that a corporation is not a living person; it can only act through its agents. To

hold otherwise would mean corporations would never be liable for any crime.

Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co pg. 133

Cook County, Illinois holds public auctions for tax liens on delinquent taxpayersproperties. Bridge and Phoenix compete to buy liens. County requires buyers to submitbids in their own names. Phoenix sued Bridge for fraudulently getting tax liens by filingfalse documents through others claiming that they lost possible tax lien purchases. Theyalso claimed that Bridge and other bidders violated RICO through racketeering involvingmail fraud by sending false documents for tax lien purchases. The District courtdismissed RICO claims and held that plaintiffs were not protected by mail fraud statutesince scam was not directed at them. If there was a scam, it was directed at Cook County& property owners (not plaintiffs) and they could have a cause of action. The Appealscourt reversed in favor of plaintiffs. The Defendants appealed. The US Supreme courtheld in favor of the plaintiffbecause plaintiff asserting RICO claim based on mail fraudneed not show that it relied on defendants alleged misrepresentations. The basis of themail fraud is a mailing that furthers a scheme to defraud even if the mailing does notcontain false information. Here, mail was used to submit false attestations of compliancewith the Bidder Rule to the County.