Fast As We Can Delivery Case Study
Written Assignment 9
Business Law
Dr. Ackerman
October 13, 2013
Dawn is a delivery driver for Fast as We Can Delivery. While driving the company vehicle to run an errand to DNA Labs, she is involved in an accident with Mr. Dewey Cheatum. Mr. Cheatum is bringing action against Dawn, DNA Labs, and Fast as We Can Delivery. Dawn’s position with her employer is such that she could be considered an agent, or an employee. An agent is when “an employer hires an employee and gives that employee authority to act and enter into contracts on his or her behalf” (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 488). Dawn does not have authority to enter into contracts by the limited information we have, …show more content…
If she did not stop, she never would have had an accident. This is commonly referred to as frolic and detour. Frolic and detour, according to Henry Cheeseman (2013), occur when an agent runs personal errands while still working. However if the deviation was minor, the principal (Fast as We Can Delivery), is liable for the injuries caused by the agent (p. 504). Dawn could argue dual-purpose mission since Ian (Dawn’s supervisor) asked Dawn to deliver the package after she was off the clock and was going home. Dual-purpose mission states principals request that agents run errands or conduct other acts on their behalf while the agent or employee is on personal business (Cheeseman, 2013, p.504). According to respondent superior the principal is liable, not because the principal is at fault, but because of the employment contract (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 503). Dawn, as an agent, is not liable for any damages suffered by Mr. Cheatum; however, Fast As We Can Delivery …show more content…
Ian, unless he adjusted Dawn’s timecard with her knowledge, would be in violation of labor laws and his company subject to a fine. According to the Department of Labor, “hours worked includes all time an employee must be on duty, or on the employer's premises or at any other prescribed place of work” (dol.gov). Dawn would not be liable for the accident if the company acknowledges she was within the scope of her normal duties. Fast as We Can Delivery could argue that Dawn was doing a personal favor for a fellow co-worker and that they are not liable. In this case, then the company would not be liable due to the coming and going rule. The coming and going rule, according to Henry Cheeseman (2013), states even if the principle supplies the agent’s automobile they are not liable for injuries caused by agents going to or coming from home. (p. 504). Fast as We Can Delivery could argue that Ian exceeded the scope of his authority by having Dawn deliver a package while off the
Business Law
Dr. Ackerman
October 13, 2013
Dawn is a delivery driver for Fast as We Can Delivery. While driving the company vehicle to run an errand to DNA Labs, she is involved in an accident with Mr. Dewey Cheatum. Mr. Cheatum is bringing action against Dawn, DNA Labs, and Fast as We Can Delivery. Dawn’s position with her employer is such that she could be considered an agent, or an employee. An agent is when “an employer hires an employee and gives that employee authority to act and enter into contracts on his or her behalf” (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 488). Dawn does not have authority to enter into contracts by the limited information we have, …show more content…
If she did not stop, she never would have had an accident. This is commonly referred to as frolic and detour. Frolic and detour, according to Henry Cheeseman (2013), occur when an agent runs personal errands while still working. However if the deviation was minor, the principal (Fast as We Can Delivery), is liable for the injuries caused by the agent (p. 504). Dawn could argue dual-purpose mission since Ian (Dawn’s supervisor) asked Dawn to deliver the package after she was off the clock and was going home. Dual-purpose mission states principals request that agents run errands or conduct other acts on their behalf while the agent or employee is on personal business (Cheeseman, 2013, p.504). According to respondent superior the principal is liable, not because the principal is at fault, but because of the employment contract (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 503). Dawn, as an agent, is not liable for any damages suffered by Mr. Cheatum; however, Fast As We Can Delivery …show more content…
Ian, unless he adjusted Dawn’s timecard with her knowledge, would be in violation of labor laws and his company subject to a fine. According to the Department of Labor, “hours worked includes all time an employee must be on duty, or on the employer's premises or at any other prescribed place of work” (dol.gov). Dawn would not be liable for the accident if the company acknowledges she was within the scope of her normal duties. Fast as We Can Delivery could argue that Dawn was doing a personal favor for a fellow co-worker and that they are not liable. In this case, then the company would not be liable due to the coming and going rule. The coming and going rule, according to Henry Cheeseman (2013), states even if the principle supplies the agent’s automobile they are not liable for injuries caused by agents going to or coming from home. (p. 504). Fast as We Can Delivery could argue that Ian exceeded the scope of his authority by having Dawn deliver a package while off the