Chapter 38 Assignment Answers

Chapter 38 Assignment Answers - 9. No. The hotel was not...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Business Law I Chapter 38 – Assignment Answers Evelyn Tavares 5. No. Mills will not be held vicarious liability theory. Under the respondeat superior rule, the employer is liable only for those torts committed within the scope of employment. In this case, Sullivan is not an employee of Mills Electric Co., but an independent contractor.( Owner’s liability for acts of an independent contractor; vicarious liability for torts). 7. This is a case of vicarious liability course of employment. Judgment in Ramos’ favor. Padilla believed that he was obligated to remove all company equipment if a customer refused to sell Frito-Lay merchandise. He acted within the range of his employment in attempting to retake the rack. Thus, Frito-Lay is vicariously liable for the acts of its employee Padilla.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 9. No. The hotel was not vicariously liable for the act of the employee outside of the scope of employment. (Vicarious liability of employer for intentional tort of employee) 10. (Employer’s liability for negligent hiring). Diezel had a bad employment history and Island City had knowledge that Diezel could create problems for them. This makes the employer negligent. 13. (Respondeat superior; course of employment. Judgment for Yellow Cab Company).No. The Yellow Cab Company was not liable for the act of the employee outside of the scope of employment. The employer could not predict that its employee would attack another motorist....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/29/2012 for the course BUSINESS 101 taught by Professor Monastersky during the Spring '10 term at Bergen Community College.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online