Assignment 8.2 - Law Cases.docx - BUS204X Cases Lyon v...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 5 pages.

BUS204X Cases: Lyon v. Carey, 533 F.2d 649 (Cir. Ct. App. DC 1976) and Cockrell v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist., 865 So.2d 357 (Miss. 2004) 1. How can Cockrell v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist. and Lyon v. Carey be reconciled? Both involve an agent’s unacceptable behavior (assault) but in Lyon, the agent’s actions were imputed to the principal, and in Cockrell, the agent’s actions were not imputed to the principal. For the case Lyon v. Carey, Carey was acting in the scope of his employment. Pep Line Trucking should be held responsible for the assault. The disagreement between the client and agent happened based on the job that Carey was sent to do. Pep Line wanted him to enter the apartment. “ Though the apartment was not owned by nor in the control of his employer, it was nevertheless a place he was expected by his employer to enter.” [ CITATION Don18 \l 1033 ] . The company has a COD policy which heightened the argument. Carey was acting in the scope of his employment. The rules that were

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture