1
Chapter 34
Small Business, Entrepreneurship, and General Partnerships
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
34.1 Sole Proprietorship
No. Jerry Schuster is not liable for the warranty made by his father. James Schuster, the father, was a sole
proprietor doing business as (d.b.a.) “Diversity Heating and Plumbing” when he made the warranty to
Vernon, the purchaser of the boiler. Jerry Schuster, the son, was a sole proprietor when he later operated
his sole proprietorship “Diversity Heating and Plumbing.” The court held that James Schuster’s sole
proprietorship ended when he died. When Jerry, his son, began a new sole proprietorship, he began a
separate business from that of his father. The court stated, “It is well settled that a sole proprietorship has
34.2 Liability of General Partners
Therefore, even though the jury found that defendant Antenucci was not guilty of any malpractice in his
treatment of the patient Zuckerman, but that defendant Pena, his partner, was guilty of malpractice in his
treatment of the patient, they were then both jointly and severally liable for the malpractice committed by
34.3 Tort Liability
No, the law firm and the other partners are not liable for McGrath’s tortious conduct in shooting Hayes.
The court noted that a master is responsible for the servant’s acts under the doctrine of respondeat
McGrath, Treadwell & Schoonmaker, 749 P.2d 178, 1988 Wash. App. Lexis 27 (Court of Appeals of
2
Washington)
VII. Answer to Ethics Case
34.4 Ethics Case
assets; withdrew capital of the partnership for personal use; failed to pay capital and income due Gilroy;
and took possession of, and used as his own, partnership property, including inventory, equipment,
customer lists, contract rights and expectancies, and accounts. The court characterized this case as a
“classic study of greed” and found that Conway had literally destroyed the partnership by knowingly and