Lynne Meyer, on her way to a business meeting and in a hurry, stopped at a Buy-M
ID: 2473191 • Letter: L
Question
Lynne Meyer, on her way to a business meeting and in a hurry, stopped at a Buy-Mart store for a new car charger for her smartphone. There was a long line at one of the checkout counters, but a cashier, Valerie Watts, opened another counter and began loading the cash drawer. Meyer told Watts that she was in a hurry and asked Watts to work faster. Instead, Watts slowed her pace. At this point, Meyer hit Watts.
It is not clear whether Meyer hit Watts intentionally or, in an attempt to retrieve the car charger, hit her inadvertently. In response, Watts grabbed Meyer by the hair and hit her repeatedly in the back of the head, while Meyer screamed for help. Management personnel separated the two women and questioned them about the incident. Watts was immediately fired for violating the store’s no-fighting policy. Meyer subsequently sued Buy-Mart, alleging that the store was liable for the tort (assault and battery) committed by its employee. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.
1.Under what doctrine discussed in this chapter might Buy-Mart be held liable for the tort committed by Watts?
2.What is the key factor in determining whether Buy-Mart is liable under this doctrine?
3.How is Buy-Mart’s potential liability affected by whether Watts’s behavior constituted an intentional tort or a tort of negligence?
4.Suppose that when Watts applied for the job at Buy-Mart, she disclosed in her application that she had previously been convicted of felony assault and battery. Nevertheless, Buy-Mart hired Watts as a cashier. How might this fact affect Buy-Mart’s liability for Watts’s actions?
Explanation / Answer
Ans 1 Doctrine of respondent superior which is applicable in this case. Under this doctrine the assumption is that the employers are in a better position to absorb the cost which arises from employees tort.So in this case superior/employer is liable for the actions of its employees or agents who have committed torts.
Ans 2 Key factor is doctrine of respondent superior as the employer is liable for the torts which are committed by the employees in the scope /course of employment.
Ans 3 Buy-mart will be liable in intentional tort and tort of negligence as doctrine of respondent superior does not distinguish between two. Walmart behaviour is wrong in the scope of employment so Buy Mart is liable.
Ans 4 In this situation Buy mart is liable. Employer who already knows or should know that the employee has tendency to commit tortious acts is liable for the employee action even if the act is not within the scope of employment.As watt action was not in the scope of employment Buy Mart would be liable for the same.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.