Preview

What Is John Stokely's Vicarious Liability Of AAA Auto Dealers?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
488 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
What Is John Stokely's Vicarious Liability Of AAA Auto Dealers?
To: Senior Attorney
From: Paralegal
Re: Vicarious Liability

John Stokely is responsible for injuring the motorcyclist while driving a vehicle from AAA Auto Dealers. Employers are vicariously liable under the respondeat superior doctrine. In the respondeat superior doctrine, in most cases, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the scope of employment. John Stokely used the company’s vehicle for personal reasons, regardless of what they were, and negligently collided into and injured someone on a motorcycle. John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers. Not only did he use the company’s car for personal reasons, his boss accompanied him on the visit to a family member’s house for dinner. The boss was excusing John Stokely’s behavior, allowing him to use company property for a different purpose other than what it was intended for. John Stokely’s boss accompanied him to his cousin’s house so it can be argued that John Stokely had “permission” to do what he wanted. The boss will be held responsible by the owner(s) of AAA Auto Dealers as well by allowing John Stokely to act outside of his job description.
…show more content…
Vicarious liability for employers and respondeat superior are words that can be used to research cases, statutes, constitutional provisions, and regulations that relate to the scenario. Negligence within the scope of employment is a phrase that can be used to perform a search for law reviews and journals, treatises, Restatements, dictionaries, and the Restatement of

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    In order to determine the role of DD’s violation of the statute in the car accident the three-part negligence per se test must be applied to determine if . The three elements of the negligence per se test: whether the statute protects a class of individuals of which the Plaintiff is a member, protects against harm of the sort that the Plaintiff suffered, is an appropriate standard for use in the case. Applying this statute to the case it can be determined that the statute was created to protect the class of individuals such as the hitchhiker, i.e. passengers in other vehicles while DD was driving on the road in a tractor trailer truck which he was not licensed to drive. The state statute 101 was not created to prevent the type of harm that was suffered by the Plaintiff, the hitchhiker’s injury was caused by FF’s rear-ending DD and not by DD driving a tractor trailer truck. This is also not the appropriate standard for use in this case because the harm was not the result of violation of the standard. Therefore, the reasonable person standard should be applied instead of negligence per…

    • 778 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    On the occasion in question, defendant, Anheuser-Busch, and their employee Frank Cuellar failed to maintain a safe driving experience with a secure load..…

    • 340 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hrm593 Week 3 Assignment

    • 967 Words
    • 4 Pages

    * Analyze the legal factors for the potential claim(s) in the context of the employee pursuing legal action against the employer.…

    • 967 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to Cheeseman (2013), negligence is a "A doctrine that says a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions" (p.91). The elements of negligence include:…

    • 662 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    FACTS: Defendant, AAA North Jersey, Inc. (“AAA”), contracted with Five Star Auto Service (“Five Star”) to perform towing and auto repair services for AAA. Defendant Terence Pershad, a tow-truck driver employed by Five Star, received a call through AAA to assist a crashed car. Upon Pershad’s arrival at the crash site, Pershad and Plaintiff Nicholas Coker (a passenger of the crashed car) began fighting, which ended soon after Pershad assaulted Plaintiff with a knife. Plaintiff filed suit in a New Jersey state court against Pershad, Five Star, and AAA. The trial court determined that AAA held no responsibility for the alleged negligence of Five Star in hiring Pershad, and granted AAA summary judgement. Coker appealed the trial court’s ruling to the New Jersey Appellate Court.…

    • 888 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Lavr Johnson Wheaton Case

    • 324 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Wheaton is liable for the manager’s injuries. Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior Liability. The principle in this case would be Wheaton and the agent would be LaVar Johnson. Under this doctrine an employer is liable for torts committed by agents, who are employees and who commit the tort while acting within the scope their employment, in addition, it also makes the principal liable both for an employees' negligence and for her intentional torts (pg. 944).…

    • 324 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    7. Employers are held liable for the intentional torts of their employees when if the hired employee knowing he or she had history suggesting propensity for tortious conduct.…

    • 512 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Let's say a person was driving for company work and passed over a red signals. The accident causes injury to another driver. The company wouldn't be responsible for the accident for the reason that it didn't happen during employment. However, when that same driver operated…

    • 594 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Eth 316 Week 9 Final Paper

    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages

    I believe that the doctrine of respondent Superior does have some limitation, one of which is that even though it seeks to give liability to the party that would be more able to pay for loss for damage incurred. If for example the employee’s actions was unauthorized and outside the scope of his/her work the employer still must stand liability, situations like these happen often in the medical profession where patients are injured at the hands of unauthorized personnel and the employer becomes liable in a lawsuit. When the employee causes injury to a third party even it is unauthorized I believe that it is fair to have the employer stand liability however as I said before I do not agree with application of this doctrine in the cases where the action that injured the third party was reasonably taken upon the employee without authorization and outside their scope of their…

    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Law Case

    • 5575 Words
    • 23 Pages

    PUSEY, EXR., APPELLANT, v. BATOR ET AL.; GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION, APPELLEE. [Cite as Pusey v. Bator (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 275.] Torts — Wrongful death — Employer hires independent contractor to provide armed security guards to protect property — Inherently dangerous work exception — If someone is injured by weapon as a result of a guard’s negligence, employer is vicariously liable even though guard responsible is an employee of the independent contractor. (No. 00-1787 — Submitted October 30, 2001 — Decided February 27, 2002.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 98 C.A. 55. __________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT When an employer hires an independent contractor to provide armed security guards to protect property, the inherently-dangerous-work exception is triggered such that if someone is injured by the weapon as a result of a guard’s negligence, the employer is vicariously liable even though the guard responsible is an employee of the independent contractor. __________________ DOUGLAS, J. At all times relevant herein, defendant-appellee, Greif…

    • 5575 Words
    • 23 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Dilemma

    • 1666 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Mr. Mapp, assuming Mr. DiDomenico as a generic store security guard, would use the theory of respondeat superior to claim that Gimbels is liable for his injuries sustained. This theory states the employers/principals are responsible for the conduct of their employees, assuming they are acting in the scope of their employment. However, Mr. Mapp’s approach to this theory would not be successful because Mr. DiDomenico is an employee of J.C. Penney’s and not an employee of Gimbels. Gimbels never hired DiDomenico so him acting upon himself to apprehend Mr. Mapp is not part of his scope of employment. The only way Gimbels would be responsible for Mr. Mapp’s injuries would be if DiDomenico were an actual employee for the company and, the attack would then be related to the duties of the employment and the assault would have then occurred within work-related limits of time and place.…

    • 1666 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Facts: Matt Theurer was an 18 year old adult that worked at McDonald’s part time. His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities, worked for the National Guard, and worked for McDonalds. McDonald’s informal policy did not allow high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or split shifts. There was a special clean-up week McDonald’s held, Theurer worked five nights. One night he worked until midnight, another until 11:30pm, two nights until 9pm, and another until 11pm. On Monday, April 4th, 1988, Theurer worked from 3:30 until 7:30pm, followed by the clean up shift beginning at midnight until 5am on April 5th, and then he worked another shift from 5am until 8:21am. During that shift, Theurer told his manager he was tired and asked to leave from his next regular shift. The manager accepted his request, and Theurer began to drive home. He was driving 45 miles per hour on a two lane road when he either fell asleep or became drowsy. Theurer crossed the dividing lane into on-coming traffic, and crashed into Frederic Faverty’s minivan. Theurer was killed and Faverty was seriously injured. Faverty settled his claims with Theurer’s estate, and then he filed suit against McDonald’s.…

    • 1194 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Torts/delicts

    • 3691 Words
    • 19 Pages

    Torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. These wrongs result in…

    • 3691 Words
    • 19 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    ACNB A2

    • 5771 Words
    • 18 Pages

    In the report, the analyses maybe not describe the solution clearly, the word used is not available. The readers might misunderstand the meaning of the solution.…

    • 5771 Words
    • 18 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    If an employee commits a tort, the employer is vicariously liable and can be sued in damages. The plaintiff can sue the employee or the employer. It does not matter that the employer did not personally commit the negligent act. However, to succeed against the employer, the plaintiff must show that the employee was acting in the course of employment. The vicarious liability of the employer only extended to situations where the employee was carrying out activities that were within the scope of the employee’s authority or where it was an activity the employee was contracted to perform.…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays