Premium Essay

Vicarious Liability Memo

In: Other Topics

Submitted By Angmcp
Words 749
Pages 3
Name
Kaplan University
PA165
December 19, 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS: John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers, a local automobile dealership. Part of his job duties is to check on new orders at the manufacturing facility, which is 150 miles from the dealership. AAA Auto Dealers provides John with a dealer car to drive, as well as reimburses him for gasoline, food, and lodging. While driving to the manufacturing plant, John, accompanied by his boss, decided to stop by John’s cousin’s house for dinner. While on the way to his cousin’s house, John collided with a motorcyclist, injuring the driver.
ISSUE:
Whether AAA Auto Dealers are liable for John’s negligence?
RULE:
AAA Auto Dealer’s may be held vicariously liable for its employee's actions under the theory of respondeat superior for negligence committed within the scope of employment, citing Stropes v. Heritage Children's Ctr., 547 N.E.2d 244, 247 (Ind. 1989).
ANALYSIS:
Vicarious Liability imposes responsibility on one person for the acts of another because of a special relationship with that person; such as a parent or employer. Okrent, C., & J.D.. (2009). Respondeat Superior places responsibility on the employer for any acts or harm caused by its employees while working. Okrent, C., & J.D.. (2009). If an employee’s acts were authorized, then the respondeat superior rule applies. In Barnett v. Clark, Debra A. Barnett sought damages against Camille Clark, Trustee of Pleasant Township in Steuben County, Indiana for the acts committed by a Trustee employee. Barnett suffered rape, sexual battery, and false imprisonment by Donald Clark, a deputy trustee, when seeking assistance from the Trustee’s office. The Indiana Court of Appeals determined that for respondeat superior to be imposed an employee must have inflicted harm while acting "within the scope of employment."...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Liability of the School for Student Injury Arising Out of Acts or Omissions of Teachers, Instructors, Professors, and School Officials: Some Legal Bases

...TITLE: LIABILITY OF THE SCHOOL FOR STUDENT INJURY ARISING OUT OF ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF TEACHERS, INSTRUCTORS, PROFESSORS, AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS: SOME LEGAL BASES PRESENTER: LUZVIMINDA E. REYES SUBJECT: EDUCATION 205- THE LAW AND THE SCHOOL PROFESSORIAL LECTURER: DR. PITSBERG B. DE ROSAS ------------------------------------------------- I. Introduction The relation between teachers and student or employer and his employee or apprentice originates from the old relationship between the master and the artisan or craftsman. In the past, teachers were more authoritarian. However, today, such a concept is no longer true because student now have more automy. The principle of en loco parentis according to which teachers become surrogate parents of the students or pupils in the school. The power of en loco parentis should not be interpreted literally. This is because the authority of parents over children according to the law is only while in the age of minority while the authority of teachers and schools over students has no limit as to age. They are under the supervision of the school. He put himself under the proto active custody and supervisory and custodial power of the school. It is for this reason that the power of the school is made responsible for there can be no......

Words: 1657 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Business Civic Liability Research Paper

...Eric Moreno Business Civic Liability Research Paper MGMT 518 12/4/2012 Businesses today have to take a multitude of factors into consideration to try and stay on the positive end of the profit margin. One important factor that many businesses often overlook is the “ticking time bomb” that they may have already hired. Businesses need to realize the risk that they may be held civilly liable for some of the criminal acts of their employees. This is no black and white issue either; with the constantly changing and evolving legal system we have here in this country, any one act done by an employee can also be used to sue the employer. Why do businesses need to worry about this? Well, most plaintiffs will go after the deeper pockets of the employer, and juries may be more inclined to side with the plaintiff rather than one of these “big” companies. Therefore, it is important that business protect themselves from liability. The type of protection depends on the industry. Often, however, doing simple things like conducting a thorough background check, having a code of ethics or conduct can shield companies from liability. Conducting a thorough background check seems to be the most efficient way to protect a company from an employee’s criminal activity—by preventing that employee from working at the company in the first place. Filtering out employees with criminal pasts or problems with prior employers can help minimize the liability of a company from its employees’ actions....

Words: 1331 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Business Law 2 - Case Study 1

...the case Trial Court: Dean Witter won. The broker was found 85% liable and the firm was found to be 15%. Lower appellate court: Dean Witter won. Overall winner: Decision upheld, the broker was found 85% liable and the firm was found to be 15% Facts: Maria Millian sued both her son and Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. for negligence, gross negligence, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. Maria Millian opened two brokerage accounts with Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. with her son. Her son Miguel forged her signature on an account application form and opened the account in her name. Miguel began to steal money from his mother’s account which totaled about $287,000. Trial court directed a verdict for Dean Witter on issues of vicarious liability. They found Dean Witter is 15% liable and Millan is 85% responsible due to not discovering the fraud sooner. Plaintiff’s theory: Miguel and Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. stole money from Maria Millian by deceiving her. Because Miguel opened fraudulent accounts in the name of Maria Millian and wrote checks payable to cash, and because the company did not verify the signatures, Millian sued for negligence, gross negligence, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant’s theory: Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. was not fully responsible for the fraudulent acts committed by Miguel because he was not acting within the scope of his position at the firm ultimately resulting in monies being stolen from Millian’s account. Legal......

Words: 427 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Risk and Safety Assessment

...students. The responsibility of ensuring the safety and well-being of every student on campus takes on a great amount of liability. Every staff member bears this responsibility but many do not recognize the task. As written in School Law and Public Schools by Essex, liability of school personnel falls into the following categories: Individual liability – school personnel may be held individually liable for their actions that result in injury to a student. Vicarious liability – districts may also be held vicariously liable for the negligent behavior of their employees. Foreseeability – ability of an educator to predict or anticipate that a certain activity or situation may prove harmful to students. Nuisances – any dangerous or hazardous condition that limits free use of property. Invitees – there is an expectation that the property is safe for invitees. Licensees – school officials have a duty to warn invitees of any impeding dangerous conditions and to take reasonable steps to protect them. Trespassers – there is normally no obligation to protect trespassers who enter the property illegally. Parents – when parents visit schools, there is an obligation to address unsafe conditions prior to their arrival. (Essex, 2012) Just as these laws create liability for school personnel, school safety standards are in place to prevent any such liability. Conducting the risk and safety assessment of schools helps us as educators identify potential threats/violations......

Words: 1052 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Criminal Law

...Doctrine of vicarious liability The doctrine of vicarious liability generally operates within the law of torts. It has become well-established in English law and historically has been called “Master and Servant liability,” which clearly indicates the circumstances in which the doctrine becomes applicable in tort law. The general rule in tort law is that a person who authorises a tort will personally be liable for damage or harm as a result. However, vicarious liability defines the circumstances in which a person is liable for the torts of another without express authorisation or ratification. The most common example of vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for the torts of his employees committed in the course of employment. It is not necessary in such circumstances for the employer to have breached any duty that was owed to the injured party, and therefore it operates as strict or no-fault liability. It is possible that the injured party could be either an employee or a stranger, and the employer can be held vicariously liable in both situations. The most important element to establishing a case for vicarious liability is that the wrongdoer be acting as a servant or employee, and that the wrong done be connected to the employee's course of employment. Vicarious liability can only be imposed if it is proved that the employee was acting “in the course of employment.” This criteria is essential, and requires a clear connection between the employment duties and......

Words: 2814 - Pages: 12

Free Essay

Vicarious Liability

...VICARIOUS LIABILITY Words 1055 1) Vicarious liability is a legal tort doctrine that assigns responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the person has a special relationship (such as employer and employee or owner of vehicle and driver), to exercise such care as any reasonable prudent person would use under similar circumstances. In other words, it imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees, who have acted negligently. 2) The elements of the doctrine include that: the person who commits the wrong must be an employee, the employee must have committed a tort and it must have been committed in the course of employment. In regards to the first requirement for imposing VL, the rule is that an employer can only be liable for torts committed by employees. There is generally no liability for torts committed by independent contractors (although there can be in certain exceptional situations). However, it is not always possible to determine at first sight whether in fact a person is employed under a contract of service or not. It will often be in the interest of an ‘employer’ to deny that the relationship is one of employment. It has been suggested in WHPT Housing Association Ltd v. Secretary of State for Social Services that the distinction lies in the fact that the employee provides himself to serve while the self- employed person only offers his services. 6) Once it has been established that sufficient......

Words: 1056 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Vicarious Liability

...submitted to prof. manjula batra | LAW OF TORTS PROJECT | VICARIOUS LIABILITY | | | SUBMITTED BY:VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGHFIRST SEMEMSTER, 2012BA., LL.B. (HONS.) | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would take this opportunity to thank the people who helped me in making this project which has been a learning experience. In that endeavour, first and foremost I would express my gratitude toward my professor of Law of Torts Ms Manjula Batra. Her immense knowledge and teaching skills along with her helping disposition are where all of this stemmed from. Next, I would thank my seniors in the faculty who gave us guidelines as to how to go about the research. These are the people who were always there with me in the making of this project. Heartfelt thanks to all the above-mentioned people. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Books and Journals referred: 1. Salmond, Torts, 18th Ed 2. HOLMES Common Law, pp. 179 (180) 3. The Law of Torts by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal 4. Law of Torts by Dr R. K. Bangia 5. Law of Torts by B.M.Gandhi Websites referred: 1. www.legalserviceindia.com Cases: 1. Brook v. Hook (1871) LR 6 Ex 89 2. Keighly Maxsted & Co. v. Durant (1901) AC 240 p.260 : 84 LT 777 (HL) 3. PER LOCH, J., in Rani Shamasundari Debi v. Dukhu Mandal (1869) 2 Beng LR (AACJ) 227 (229) 4. Bird v. Brown (1850) 4 Ex 786 (799); Buron v. Denman (1848) 2 Ex 167 5. Baxi Amrik Singh v. The Union of India (1973) 75 P.L.R. 1 at p.7 6. Imperical Chemical......

Words: 4730 - Pages: 19

Premium Essay

John Stokley Memorandum

...John Stokely and AAA Auto Dealers Jennifer L. Beverly Kaplan University PA 165 Professor Fiano December 19, 2011 Memorandum of Law From: Jennifer L. Beverly To: Astrid Fiano, Esq. Re: John Stokely and AAA Auto Dealers Date: December 19, 2011 Question Presented Is AAA Auto Dealers liable for John’s negligence? Brief Answer AAA Auto Dealers is liable for Mr. Stokely’s negligence committed within the scope of employment. Mr. Stokely’s actions fall within the scope of employment because driving to the manufacturing facility was business related. Mr. Stokely’s boss accompanied him to the manufacturing facility. Facts John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers, a local automobile dealership. He often drives to the manufacturing facility, which is 150 miles from the dealership, to check on new orders. John’s employer reimburses him for gasoline, food, and lodging, and provides John with a dealer car to drive. While driving to the manufacturing plant, John decided to stop by his cousin’s house for dinner. His boss accompanied him on the visit “to get a decent meal for a change.” While on the way there, John collided with and injured a motorcyclist. Discussion In the case of Largey v. Intrastate Radiotelephone, Inc a motorcycle driver was severely injured by an individual driver who the courts found to be an employee of the appellant. The court found that the......

Words: 688 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Cyber Liability

...Vicarious liability Vicarious liability is the principle of law that holds one party liable for the acts or negligence of another party. (Susan W Killion, 2006) It is provided that the third parties such as members of the group, subcontractors, agents, franchisee, clients and customers, are deemed to be under the control of the employer. (David A. Beyer, 2006) It is also known as the legal liability and responsibility attached to the shoulder of the employer if his employee committed wrongful act within the course, scope or terms of their employment due to the authority delegate to him by the employer. (Ibrahim, 2012)This may include bullying and harassment, violent or discriminatory acts and breach of copyright. (Dale, 2005) In vicarious liability, the key question is the difficulty in determining whether the employee was acting in personal capacity or in the course of their employment. The knowledge of the employer is irrelevant on the wrongdoing. Though, the employer could take reasonable steps to prevent such acts from occurring and take remedial and corrective measures. For example, policies and standards could be prosecuted and training could be provided. Employer also may claim the right to a limited indemnity from the employee if the employer is vicariously liable for the tort of an employee under common law. However, this could not apply to the employer when he required the employee to do something illegal.(Queensland Law Reform Commission, December......

Words: 503 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Firac

...October 5, 2012 The primary sources I have are a case. The secondary sources I have used are restatement of torts, American law reports. I used the search terms, vicarious liability of employers, respondeat superior, coming and going rule for vicarious liability and frolic and detour rules for vicarious liability. The search method I used was natural language, I tried Boolean too but it did not work for me because I have always used natural language and it works for me. FACTS: John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers, a local automobile dealership. He often drives to the manufacturing facility, which is 150 miles from the dealership, to check on new orders. John’s employer reimburses him for gasoline, food, and lodging, and provides John with a dealer car to drive. While driving to the manufacturing plant, John decided to stop by his cousin’s house for dinner. His boss accompanied him on the visit “to get a decent meal for a change.” While on the way there, John collided with and injured a motorcyclist. Is AAA Auto Dealers liable for John’s negligence? ISSUE: Is AAA Auto Dealers vicariously liable for John’s negligence? RULE: Vicarious liability automatically imposes tort responsibility on a defendant because of his relationship with the wrongdoer. The most frequent example of vicarious liability is when employers are held liable under a theory of respondent superior for the actions of employees within the scope of their employment (The Restatement......

Words: 783 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Law of Business Association

...Ltd. Under S119 a company comes into existence as a body corporate at the beginning of the day on which it is registered with the name specified in its certificate of registration. Under S124 a company has the legal capacity and power of an individual both in and outside this jurisdiction. Four consequences from separate legal entity 1. there is a distinction between private and company debt. 2. there is a distinction between private and company assets. 3. a company can contract with its member. 4 a company can be liable in tort to a member. A company is recognised as a separate legal entity, it is possible for the ,members of a compang to enjoy limited liability. Put anotherway- the doctrine of separate legal entity. The liabili belong to the company and in a limited liaility company, the members’ liability is limited to the amount unpaid on the shares or the amount of the guarantee given by the member Application of law to the facts In this case, even though Toan and his wife are the sole shareholders of the company, and they are its sole directors, the company was a separate legal and it, not Toan and his wife, was running the business , so the successful bidder by the company. Conclusion Under S119 and S124, separate legal entity ,Toan the action will be successful....

Words: 1019 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Week4 Discussion

...Week 4 HAS 515  Determine the importance of a thorough understanding of the legal liability of health care institutions from the Chief Medical Officer’s viewpoint. When you come across a legal issue that you do not understand, describe what your action steps might be. The CMO is a clinician and has clinical credibility and understand the practice of medicine. The CMO also has formal training in business, management, and leadership. Understanding the practice of medicine is critical, but the CMO must also understand the business of medicine both from a private practice as well as an academic perspective, depending on the setting. Credibility is required not only in the medical staff lounge, but also in the C-suite and the boardroom. The effective CMO is able to bridge the chasm between cost and quality because they understand both sides of the equation and know that, like a balance sheet, assets must equal liabilities. Neither a management degree nor a business degree alone is sufficient; real-world experience in healthcare organizations is essential. Specific skills are that the CMO must be able to credibly present and administer the agenda of quality to the governing body while supporting an economically viable budget, as well as the organization's strategic plan and legal policies and procedures( Cors,2009). If I come across legal issues that I don’t understand I will involve risk management department and review all documents needed such : Incident......

Words: 1536 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Evolving Vicarious Liability: the Real Justice?

...EVOLVING VICARIOUS LIABILITY: THE REAL JUSTICE? The Catholic Child Welfare Society & Ors v Various Claimants & Others Facts The case concerned a large group of men claiming that they had been sexually and physically abused from the brothers of the institute who taught at St William’s School. Two groups of defendants were identified in the case. The first group consists of various boards of manager, who had carried out the management of the school from 1958 and 1992, also known as the “Middlesbrough Defendants”. The second group was an Institute, which is an unincorporated association of lay brothers of the Catholic Church. At all material times, the Institute supplied both the headteacher and some other teachers to the school. This group of defendants are known as the “De La Salle Defendants”. The Institute is an unincorporated association headed by a Superior General, and divided into provinces headed by a “Provincial”. It consists of lay community teachers who are not priests, but bound together by strict rules which govern all aspects of their life. The rules prohibit the touching of a child or corporal punishment while teaching. All earnings must be given to the Institute. They swear lifelong vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. Also each brother undertakes to “go wherever I may be sent and to do whatever I maybe assigned by the Institute or its superior”. The Middlesbrough Defendants were found to be solely vicarious liable at first instance, the...

Words: 1956 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Johnnny

...University of technology College of business and Management School of business Administration Company Law Semester 2 Shanel Stone 1306021 Ms. Clarke Monday 8 – 10 January 25, 2016 Should either John Doe, the operations manager or ABC ltd be held criminally liable for the death of the driver? Who should be held liable for committing a civil act? When a company is incorporated/ registered, it becomes a legal person in law and assumes a corporate personality, in the case of Salomon v. Salomon Co., where Salomon had a leather merchant, he later decided to convert the business into a limited company and for this purpose Salomon & Co. was formed with Salomon, his wife and five of his children as members, and Salomon as Managing Director. He took all the shares of the company except six which was distributed to his family. Part of the payment for the transfer of the business was made in the form of debentures (a secured loan) issued by the company to Salomon. The Company ran into difficulties a year later, a receiver was appointed and the company went into liquidation. Its assets were sufficient to discharge the debentures but nothing was left for the unsecured creditors. The Court of Appeal held that the whole transaction was contrary to the intent of the Companies Act and that the company was a mere sham and was in reality and agent of Salomon, who was the real proprietor of the business. On further appeal, the House of Lords reversed the decision holding that......

Words: 797 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Tort Hypothetical

...Introduction Employers are potentially liable at common (for personal negligence and vicarious liability for employee negligence) and statutory law. At statutory law, the legislative intention must be ascertained and whether this allows a civil course of action for damages. It must be established whether a relationship of employment exists between the claimant and respondent. This can be done by referring to the Employees Compensation Ordinance[1], or by using certain common law tests - put simply: the control; integration; mutuality of obligations - and multiple test. Employers have four non-delegable duties[2] to: employ competent staff; provide a safe place of work; adequate equipment and a safe system of work. Subsequently, it needs determining whether the accident happened during employment and whether the employer breached his duties. Vicarious liability is strict, determined according to the existence of a relationship of employment between defendant and tortfeasor and that the tortfeasor's negligence occurred during employment - determined by the close connection test. Sufficient causation between the breach and accident needs to be shown, primarily by using the 'but for' test. Defences to employer's liability include volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence. GIC Colpo was already compensated per the ECO so determining statutory liability is unnecessary. Prior compensation does not prevent Colpo a claim at common law, as in Lung Yui Man v Yee......

Words: 2174 - Pages: 9