CASE SUMMARY 10.2 Bishop v. Texas A&M; University, 105 SW.3d 646 (2002) VICARIOU
ID: 1166548 • Letter: C
Question
CASE SUMMARY 10.2 Bishop v. Texas A&M; University, 105 SW.3d 646 (2002) VICARIOUS LIABILITY A drama club at Texas A&M; University (TAMU) performed Dracula, which was directed and supervised by a faculty adviser employed by TAMU. Bishop, a student at TAMU, was playing Vlad the Impaler in the performance when, during the final scene, a fellow student missed the stab pad attached to Bishop's chest and stabbed him with a bowie knife. Bishop suffered a collapsed lung and brought suit against TAMU, alleging that, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, TAMU was liable for the injuries he sustained as a result of the negligence of its faculty adviser employee. TAMU prohibited deadly weapons campuswide, and Bishop argued that the employee was negligent in using a real knife and in not ensuring that TAMU policies were being enforced. CASE QUESTIONS 1. Do you believe TAMU should be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior in this case? Why or why not? 2. Assume that the directors were independent contractors rather than university-employed faculty. How does that affect your analysis? Explain.Explanation / Answer
1.In this case the TAMU cannot be held responsible but yes can be questioned on the same because the advisory directors was hired by the management so they should be deciding on the decisions to be taken and make sure a thorough investigation takes place on the same with letting any intervention of comments from Bishop.It is on Bishop to decide to agree with the decisions taken by the management and since the management cannot take a chance of letting TAMU’s name down they will be bound to give a correct resolution to Bishop and make sure of both parties agreement in this so that no one is affected also protecting the reputation of the university.
2.If the directors were independent and not hired by the university then in such case the university would take action against this by reporting it to a third party intervention because they would not have a complete background of the directors and would require further interventions by third party.It goes to another level of difference in analysis here because the management of the university would differ about the involvement from the first scene though they would give the reasons of hiring the directors and why they thought it was perfect to hire him for direction.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.