Lynne Meyer, on her way to a business meeting and in a hurry, stopped at a Buy-M
ID: 2776283 • 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 Chapter 33, 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 tor or a negligent tort? 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
1. Buy-Mart can be held responsible for the tort committed by Watt under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Wherein the employer is held responsible for the actions of the employee, only on the assumption that employer is in a better position to absorb costs that may result from employees torts.
2. Buy Mart would be responsible, if the tort had been comittied in the course of employement, also scope of employement will play an important determinant.
3.There is no difference between the two torts and Buy Mart would be liable either ways under doctrine of respondeat superior.
4.An employer who knows or should know than an employee can commit tortious acts, is liable even if they would not be considered in scope of employment.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.