Question

In the case of Hammer v. Breidenbach, 31 Mo. 49 (1860), Mr. Breidenbach was hired to brew beer in a cave for his employer, at a salary of $1,000 per year. The contract between the Bavarian Brewery (which would later become Anheuser-Busch) and Mr. Breidenbach specified that any violation of the agreement would result in the breaching party paying the sum of $500 to the injured party. Because the cave was dangerous, Mr. Breidenbach refused to enter it to make the beer, and his employer demanded the $500. An appellate court later determined that Mr. Breidenbach should not be required to enter the cave and endanger himself, and he was not required to pay the $500 "penalty." In which of the following modern cases could this case act as an appropriate precedent?

a. A case where an employee was terminated for not attending work in a "sick" mold-infested building.

b. A case where a caterer refuses to enter a condemned building to provide food to a Halloween party.

c. A case where a liquidated (pre-determined) damages payment in a contract was excessively disproportionate to the injury.

d. A case where an employer was sued for forcing employees to work in unsafe conditions.

Answer 1

option D is correct

in the given case the employer has asked to enter to the cave for making beer but the cave was dangerous. Hence we can relate the given case wherr an employer was sued for forcung employees to wrork in unsafe conditions.

thank you so much

comment for any further help