For this discussion we will use Business Scenario 19-2 found at the end of Chapt
ID: 434263 • Letter: F
Question
For this discussion we will use Business Scenario 19-2 found at the end of Chapter 19 of the text. I have used this fact pattern in on campus courses settings wherein a lively debate occurs as to whether Arnez was within the scope of employment or not/whether he was on a detour or frolic. Determining how one applies the various factors to the facts determines the liability of the employer, ABC Tire Corp. Therefore, you are the judge once again. Thomas is in your courtroom having sued ABC Tire Corp. What is your conclusion- is ABC Tire Corp. liable for the injury Arnez cause to Thomas?Apply your legal reasoning in the IRAC format. Compare/contrast with "Case in Point 19.22" and "19.23" in the text. Rule: what rule(s) do you apply? Application/Conclusion: legally analyze the rule(s) to the facts to reach your conclusion. Regardless of your conclusion as to whether you determine ABC Tire Corp. is liable to Thomas or not, ABC Tire Corp. was put into a difficult position given Arnez' actions. As the employer what could you do to reduce your exposure to liability for an employee's actions or omission?Explanation / Answer
The fact that Arnez was in a rush that was self made, as he decided to devote time for his personal entertainment of meeting a friend , and thus hurried realizing it's late. As he hit the tractor driver on duty , Thomas claimed to hold ABC tires liable. However Thomas is unaware of the background as to why Arnez was in rush
Once Thomas lodges a complaint against the company and the court takes up conducting investigation against the alleged, the findings with respect to timings and relevant occurance if events would eventually lead to the offense coming over Arnez and not the tire corporation on a whole. Arnez may seek help and support under the lieu of the company. They company might have to give into some extent of support considering that the employee was on duty while met the accident. However, if declared not guilty in courts eyes , the company itself wilcl disown and terminate post the findings.
Case 19.22 is a directly offensive act as the SDI employee was at fault on work and didn't look around the surroundings enough before spraying . He should have looked at all the possible apertures before spraying and it caused a heart attack which is direct charge .
Whereas in 19.23 , Mandel's own negligence and whimses are not something that the emoloyer should be liable for any charge. While on duty , if taking advantage of the scope of traveling , if an employee commits some accident, he is soully responsible and not the employer.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.