Case Study: The Respondeat Superior Doctrine
The respondeat superior doctrine makes employers directly liable for harm caused by their employees as long as they are acting within an official capacity. These actions must be within their scope of employment, relate to their work and take place during working hours and in the area they work (Walsh, 2014)
The narrow issue is whether or not Mr. Mellon legally responsible for Mr. Bundy’s actions under the doctrine. Betty would be required to prove that Mr. Bundy was acting in the scope of his duties which is defined by section 228 of the Restatement (Second). 1. Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if, but only if:
a. It is of the kind he is employed to perform.
b. It occurs substantially within the authorized time …show more content…
If force is intentionally used by the servant against another, the use of force is not unexpectable by the master.
2. Conduct of a servant is Barnes and Kahn not within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master (Best, -Fogel, 2014)
Section 229, Kind of Conduct Within Scope of Employment
1. To be within the scope of the employment, conduct must be of the same general nature as that authorized, or incidental to the conduct authorized.
2. In determining whether or not the conduct, although not authorized, is nevertheless so similar to or incidental to the conduct authorized as to be within the scope of employment, the following matters of fact are to be considered:
a. Whether or not the act is one commonly done by such servants.
b. The time, place and purpose of the act.
c. The previous relations between the master and the servant.
d. The extent to which the business of the master is apportioned between different servants.
e. Whether or not the act is outside the enterprise of the master or, if within the enterprise, has not been entrusted to any …show more content…
Blair, Patterson entered an agreement with Courtesy to trade in his car for a GMC Jimmy. Paterson owed $12,402.82 on his trade in; despite this he told Courtesy he owed $9,500, since the banks were closed Courtesy was unable to verify the actual amount. Courtesy reached a deal with Patterson, they allowed him to take possession of the GMC Jimmy while they maintained the title, Courtesy would credit Patterson if he overstated the amount, likewise Patterson would pay the difference if he understated the amount owed. When Courtesy discovered that Patterson actually understated the amount they notified Patterson who refused to pay the difference and to refused to return the GMC Jimmy. Subsequently they tried to repossess the track without success on several
The narrow issue is whether or not Mr. Mellon legally responsible for Mr. Bundy’s actions under the doctrine. Betty would be required to prove that Mr. Bundy was acting in the scope of his duties which is defined by section 228 of the Restatement (Second). 1. Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if, but only if:
a. It is of the kind he is employed to perform.
b. It occurs substantially within the authorized time …show more content…
If force is intentionally used by the servant against another, the use of force is not unexpectable by the master.
2. Conduct of a servant is Barnes and Kahn not within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master (Best, -Fogel, 2014)
Section 229, Kind of Conduct Within Scope of Employment
1. To be within the scope of the employment, conduct must be of the same general nature as that authorized, or incidental to the conduct authorized.
2. In determining whether or not the conduct, although not authorized, is nevertheless so similar to or incidental to the conduct authorized as to be within the scope of employment, the following matters of fact are to be considered:
a. Whether or not the act is one commonly done by such servants.
b. The time, place and purpose of the act.
c. The previous relations between the master and the servant.
d. The extent to which the business of the master is apportioned between different servants.
e. Whether or not the act is outside the enterprise of the master or, if within the enterprise, has not been entrusted to any …show more content…
Blair, Patterson entered an agreement with Courtesy to trade in his car for a GMC Jimmy. Paterson owed $12,402.82 on his trade in; despite this he told Courtesy he owed $9,500, since the banks were closed Courtesy was unable to verify the actual amount. Courtesy reached a deal with Patterson, they allowed him to take possession of the GMC Jimmy while they maintained the title, Courtesy would credit Patterson if he overstated the amount, likewise Patterson would pay the difference if he understated the amount owed. When Courtesy discovered that Patterson actually understated the amount they notified Patterson who refused to pay the difference and to refused to return the GMC Jimmy. Subsequently they tried to repossess the track without success on several