Denney v. Reppert

FACTS In June, three armed men entered and robbed the First State Bank of Eubank, Kentucky, of $30,000. Acting on information supplied by four employees of the bank, Denney, Buis, McCollum, and Snyder, three law enforcement officials apprehended the robbers. Two of the arresting officers, Godby and Simms, were state policemen, and the third, Reppert, was a deputy sheriff in a neighboring county. All seven claimed the reward for the apprehension and conviction of the bank robbers. The trial court held that only Reppert was entitled to the reward, and Denney appealed.

DECISION Judgment affirmed.

OPINION In general, when a reward is offered to the general public for the performance of some specified act, the reward may be claimed by the person who performs that act unless that person is an agent, employee, or public official acting within the scope of his employment or official duties. For this reason, the bank employees cannot recover. At the time of the robbery, they were under a duty to protect the bank’s resources and to safeguard the institution furnishing them employment Thus, in assisting the police officers in apprehending the bank robbers, the bank employees were merely doing their duty and, therefore, are not entitled to share in the reward.
Similarly, the state policemen, Godby and Simms, were exercising their duty as police officers in arresting the bank robbers and, thus, are not entitled to share in the reward. Reppert, on the other hand, was out of his jurisdiction at the time and, thus, was under no legal duty to arrest the bank robbers.

INTERPRETATION The law does not regard the performance of a preexisting duty as either a legal detriment or a legal benefit.

ETHICAL QUESTION Did the court treat all the parties fairly? Explain.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTION Do you agree with the preexisting duty rule? Explain.

Waiting Time in Line McDonald’s executives want to experiment with redesigning its restaurants so that the customers form one line leading to four registers to place orders, rather than four lines leading to four separate registers. They redesign 30 randomly selected restaurants with the single line. In addition, they randomly select 30 restaurants with the four-line configuration to participate in the study. At each restaurant, an employee monitors the wait time (in minutes) of randomly selected patrons. The following data are collected.

(a) Is the variability in wait time in the single line less than that for the multiple lines at the  level of significance? Note: Normal probability plots indicate that the data are normally distributed.

(b) Draw boxplots of each data set to confirm the results of part (a) visually.