Surname 1
Student Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Holly Hall et al., v. Sea World Entertainment, Inc. Case Analysis
In the case in question, the court made right decision to dismiss the consolidated
proposed class of action ligation submitted by consumers. The judgment of the court was right
because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient substantial as well as incriminating evidence to
prove that Sea World Entertainment Inc. was engaging in misleading and deceptive to deceive its
clients and potential customers about the state of the Orcas whales. Besides, it was not within
Sea World’s mandate to disclose information and status of their killer captive whales to those
who wish to visit the park.
Seemingly, SeaWorld owes a moral obligation to the Orcas regardless of its legal
obligation. As demonstrated in the case overview, SeaWorld is entirely responsible for the health
and general well-being of the Orca whales. One moral obligation SeaWorld has is to protect and
care for the Orcas. Instead, the plaintiff made allegations that the firm drugged its whales and
routinely coerced whale calves to be taken away from their mothers. Naturally, this is not caring
as SeaWorld claims in the adverts. Again, SeaWorld has the moral obligation to train the whales
and raise them well without making them aggressive and dangerous to humans or making them
die earlier than their normal lifespan. Besides, SeaWorld ought to respect the rights of the
animals rather than mistreating and committing wrongdoing to them.
