There was no way for Chevron to know that Kornblut was going to be on
the highway that day, that he was going to break down and need
assistance, nor that he would get out of the car and fix the problems
Chevron in no way had an agreement to protect all of the public
from unforeseeable damages or injuries sustained through complete lack
of or faulty performance to do its duties.
Chapter 22: Cockrell v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist.
How can this case and Lyon v. Carey (Section 39.4.2 "Employer’s Liability
for Employee’s Intentional Torts: Scope of Employment") be reconciled?
What is the controlling rule of law governing the principal’s liability for
the agent’s actions?
The law governing the liability of principals for acts of their agents is well
settled. Thus the cases turn on the facts. Who decides what the facts are
in a lawsuit?