Torts

Question 1

Respondeat Superior

Answer 1

The present facts present a case of respondeat superior. Under this doctrine, an employer can be held liable for the foreseeable acts of its employees who are acting within the scope of their employment.

Question 2

Apparent Authority

Answer 2

An employee has apparent authority in such a case because the outward appearance to a reasonable person suggests the employee has authority from the employer.

Question 3

Vicarious Liability

Answer 3

At issue is whether the telephone company can be held vicariously liable for its employee’s acts. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, employers are liable for the negligent acts committed by its employee if the acts occurred within the course and scope of the employment. In making this determination, courts consider whether the employee’s conduct is of the general kind the employee is hired to perform, whether the employee’s conduct occurred substantially within the hours and spatial boundaries of the employment, and whether the employee’s conduct is motivated by the purpose of serving the employer’s interest. Conduct is not deemed outside the scope of employment merely because an employee disregards the employer’s instructions. Rather, courts often find that an employee’s conduct falls within the scope of employment when the employee’s conduct is so closely connected with what the employee is employed to do or reasonably incidental to it that it constitutes the method of carrying out the employer’s objective. Frolic and detour. When is it outside the scope of employment ? Minor deviation vs. significant deviation

Question 4

Agency Theory

Answer 4

At issue is whether the telephone company can be held liable for its employee’s acts under an agency theory. Under agency theory, a principal can be liable to a third party for the torts committed by its agent if the agent acted with actual or apparent authority. An agent acts with actual authority when, at the time of acting, the agent reasonably believes, in accordance with the principal’s manifestations (words or conduct) to the agent, that the principal wishes the agent so to act. On the other hand, an agent acts with apparent authority when the principal holds out the agent as possessing authority to act on behalf of the principal and a third party is reasonably led to believe that authority exists. A principal can be liable to a third party based upon an agent’s apparent authority even though the agent had no actual authority to act.

Question 5

Negligence - Proximate Cause

Answer 5

At issue is whether the employee’s acts were the proximate cause of the foreman’s injuries. For liability to be imposed in a negligence action, the defendant’s conduct must also be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. An act by the defendant is considered the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury when a reasonable person could foresee the defendant’s actions would cause the injury that occurred. An intervening act may break the chain of causation and lead a court to conclude that the defendant’s acts are not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. In evaluating whether the intervening act breaks the chain of causation, courts typically analyze both its foreseeability and its degree of dependence on the defendant’s negligence. An intervening act that is set in motion by the defendant’s own conduct will not relieve the defendant of liability .