Ls311 Right Or Wrong Case Study
Right or Wrong Scenario
Edgar Munoz
Kaplan University
LS311
January 13, 2015
When looking at the following scenario the plaintiff will go after the store due to the employee is the one that ran over the dog. Theory of vicarious liability is considered in order to claim that a business is responsible for its employee’s actions, in this case the employee driving the pregnant lady to the hospital (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 457). Responedeat superior generally states that a business will be responsible for the actions of its employee or employees. Looking at this you have to see if the employee acted within their scope of job duties (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 457). In this case the employees was acting out side of the scope.
Most companies will have a call 911 in case of an emergency as a set policy which will then make a suit against the company almost impossible.
The employee can be consider carless which then negligence would be the tort due to a few things that may or may not include negligence on the driver, wreck less driving, failing to stop, and speeding. The only thing that the company do to defend itself is claim the employee acted outside the scope of his duties meaning he did not have permission to use the company truck. Melnick has a chance of losing this case and would be better off filing suit against the employee rather than the company.
References
Miller, R. L., & Jentz, G. A. (2010). Fundamentals of Business Law 8th Edition. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Edgar Munoz
Kaplan University
LS311
January 13, 2015
When looking at the following scenario the plaintiff will go after the store due to the employee is the one that ran over the dog. Theory of vicarious liability is considered in order to claim that a business is responsible for its employee’s actions, in this case the employee driving the pregnant lady to the hospital (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 457). Responedeat superior generally states that a business will be responsible for the actions of its employee or employees. Looking at this you have to see if the employee acted within their scope of job duties (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 457). In this case the employees was acting out side of the scope.
Most companies will have a call 911 in case of an emergency as a set policy which will then make a suit against the company almost impossible.
The employee can be consider carless which then negligence would be the tort due to a few things that may or may not include negligence on the driver, wreck less driving, failing to stop, and speeding. The only thing that the company do to defend itself is claim the employee acted outside the scope of his duties meaning he did not have permission to use the company truck. Melnick has a chance of losing this case and would be better off filing suit against the employee rather than the company.
References
Miller, R. L., & Jentz, G. A. (2010). Fundamentals of Business Law 8th Edition. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.