Answer

1. Interspousal Immunity in Florida.

   Interspousal immunity is a common law doctrine, which prohibits spouses from suing each other. The immunity was set to stop spouses from successfully prevailing in civil cases for recovery of damages in the case of a personal injury (Houlgate, 2017). The concept and doctrine of interspousal immunity appeared in the 1960s when the prevailing idea that a woman’s legal identity merged with her husband’s upon marriage. It originated from the biblical where doctrine where husband and wife are one in marriage. “Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” (Luis, 2020). The ground of interspousal immunity is necessary to preserve harmony and prevent fraud and conspiracy in marriage. However, this immunity has been judicially amended in many states, including Florida, and only a few jurisdictions now recognize interspousal tort immunity.

   The Florida Supreme Court in Waite v. Waite 618 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 1993), amended the doctrine of interspousal immunity for all tort causes of action, thereby allowing spouses to sue each other for damages from tortious acts. “The common law is hereby abrogated with regard to the intentional tort of battery, and the ability of a person to sue another person for the intentional tort of battery shall not be affected by any marital relationship between the persons.” (Luis, 2020). Some of Florida courts’ claims have recognized as tort are claims of negligence, fraud and deceit, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery (Hipler, 2020). Procedurally, these torts claims may be asserted during parties’ marriage or as separate claims in a dissolution of marriage action. However, not all tort claims that one spouse may wish to bring against the other are available under Florida law. For example, suppose the basis of a tort claim is the depletion of marital assets during the marriage, such claims cannot be brought as a separate cause of action in tort. However, it may only be considered within the context of a dissolution-of-marriage action (Hipler, 2020).

    

    

Answer

Assessing Risk and Reward

The Nissan Motor Company is one of the leading automobile makers in the world. The Japanese carmaker has primarily enjoyed a successful run, allowing it to enter various regional and international markets such as the United States. However, the changing business environment was not favorable to the company in 2019. Notably, the cooperation recorded losses amounting to 7.8%. The experience pushed the management into making tough decisions, requiring almost all of its North American workforce to go for unpaid leaves.

In late 2019, the company announced that the decline in sales necessitated a two-day unpaid leave for the North American workers. The stated days for the vacation were January 2 and 3^rd    (Chicago Tribune, 2019).  Notably, this move was a crucial decision for the company because of its conflicting impacts. Whereas on the positive side, it could help the firm minimize expenses, it threatened to affect the public perception of the company regarding employee welfare.

The rewards for the decision involved cutting expenses by not paying the workers on leave, which eventually would translate into reduced expenses. Another reward was that the decision could allow the company to optimize performance by evaluating employee performances then developing new milestones. However, on the low side, the company risked affecting its public image and brand name, especially in the North American market. As per Chakravorti (2010), the way an organization treats its employees influences the firm’s public perception. Thus, Nissan risked eliciting a negative public perception. With a distorted public image, the company could fail to revive its declining sales.

I would have advised the management of Nissan to utilize the Predictive Analytic perspective in determining the right decision to take. Ideally, the approach tries to predict what might happen in the future if particular decisions or actions are undertaken at the moment (Traymbak & Aggarwal, 2019). Looking at the situation at Nissan, the company needed to develop a goal such as increasing sales. After that, they would have made decisions aimed at realizing the set goal. In this regard, the predicted outcome could give the management an overview of whether more risks existed or significant rewards could be realized.

.