Burns tacitly sanctioned the practice of obtaining lunch at the café by expecting it guards to work continuous shifts without scheduled breaks, allowed a menu to be posted in plain view at the post, etc.2.Reasonable minds could not differ as to whether the accident occurred during the hours of her employment (it obviously did). However, they could differ as to whether she was substantially within the spatial boundaries. While she was not inside the plant boundaries, she was attempting to obtain lunch from a restaurant within the geographic area accessible to her during her ten-to-fifteen minute break and had not been given specific orders not to drive there by Burns. 3.Employees have to eat and the employer has an interest in having productive, satisfied employees. Reasonable minds could differ on the question of whether Swenson’s trip to the café was motivated by the purpose of serving Burns’ interest.
1. Note that establishing vicarious liability for Burns is not the end of the matter. Π still has to show that Δ acted negligently, that negligence was the cause of the accident, and the accident resulted in the damages she is claiming. 2. It is possible for an employer to be liable for their employee’s actions due to negligence (bad hiring practices, bad policies, etc) but this is a different cause of action than vicarious liability/ Respondeat Superior. Π is able to allege both when they sue. That is, they can argue simultaneously that the employer isliable because they acted negligently AND that the employer did not act negligently but they are vicariously liable because their employee acted negligently while meeting (1) – (3). 3. Why are time and place part of the criteria (i.e. why requirement 2)? Why is (1) insufficient by itself? Imagine Swenson was building a booby trap while at home for use at work and it injured the mailman. Thisoutside of the spatial bounds of work & demonstrates why (2) is important as a matter of fairness. Employers really have no control over what an employee does at home, so it seems grossly unfair to hold them vicariously liable even if there is some work connection to their actions.General Questions: Πs like vicarious liability because it usually provides deeper pockets than the employee.But what are the overall benefits of vicarious liability/ having Burns pay? What are we trying to accomplish?Hypo Questions: What facts would have to change so that Christensen would not have met (1) (2) or (3) as a matter of law? Concerning (1), what if Burns had specifically prohibited guards from going to the café? This is clearly relevant, but probably not decisive. There are cases where vicarious liability has been held for drunk truck drivers. Apparent Authority:Roessler v Novak(Florida District COA 2003)Π Klaus Roessler went to the emergency room at SMH and was admitted to the hospital for a perforated viscus. Scans of his abdomen were read by Dr. Lichenstein. After surgery, Π suffered serious complications and had to stay in the hospital for 2.5 months. Π alleged that the complications were due to Dr. Lichenstein negligently misreading the abdominal scans and sued. He claimed that the hospital was vicariously liable because the Dr. was an agent of the hospital and his negligence occurred while he was acting within the scope of that agency. Trial court granted a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that as a matter of lawSMH was not liable for the Dr’s actions because the Dr was an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the hospital. At issue is whether SMH represented that Dr. Lichenstein was its apparent agent.As a general rule, a principal may be held liable for the acts of its non-employee agent that are within the course and scope of their agency. Although some agencies are based upon an express