Chris Mallozzi BLW 3100 HW 3

.docx

School

Molloy College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2010H

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by MasterMole4031

HW#3 Chapter 4 Employer Liability 1. In Smith v Gardner, why was the college not vicariously liable for the assistant baseball coach’s actions? P. 78 a. The college was not held vicariously liable since the assistant baseball coach’s accident was NOT considered to be within the scope of employment with the college. 2. The court denied summary judgment in Nathans v Offerman (2013) concluding some intentional torts may fall within respondeat superior p. 80. Should Offerman’s employer be liable for his actions? Jose Offerman Bat Attack - Bluefish Manager Speaks - YouTube a. The employer should be held liable as they take on the risk of not only supplying the defendant with the weapon in question, i.e. the baseball bat, but also giving him a platform to commit this act. Had he not been employed this would have likely not happened. 3. What argument does your text make for the Lakers to be liable for the assault of Rudy Tomjanovich by Kermit Washington? P. 81 Exclusive | Kermit Washington On-Court Punch Injures Rudy Tomjanovich, NBA in New York Reacts | 1977 - YouTube a. The Laker would be held liable since the actions of Washington were then justified and condoned via reward by the Lakers organization. Because the organization rewarded the actions, it would then be considered within the scope of employment thus holding the org liable. 4. In Anderson v Soap Lake School District the plaintiff’s daughter drank shots of vodka given to her by her high school basketball coach. The coach had no college degree nor any credentials in education or child development. Plaintiff alleges negligent hiring. Summarize the court’s analysis. P. 84 a. The courts had not yet adopted a test for negligent hiring and/or retention of an employee. In order for the organization to be found guilty of negligent hiring, there had to be proof of the organization’s knowledge of the lack of training or credentials of the employee. However, Anderson had provided all paperwork and met all criteria to qualify for the job, so negligent hiring would not be a valid reason to dismiss the claims., 5. In Zajaczkowski v Connecticut State Soccer Association, why was summary judgment granted? P. 86 a. Summary judgement was granted since the case didn’t need a trial to be resolved, since the referees were not employees of the soccer association, but rather independent contractors contracted to supervise the games. That said, employers are not liable for the negligence of its independent contractors., since it has no power of control over the manner in which the work is to be done. 6. In Kavanaugh v Boston University the school was not held liable for the actions of the basketball player Levar Polk, but in Brokaw v Winfield Mt Union Community School District, the Iowa Supreme Court raised a cause of action that might hold the school liable when a player punches and injures an opponent. What is that potential cause of action? P. 92 a. The cause of action was due to the defendants not knowing in the exercise of reasonable care, that McSorley was likely to commit a battery in this contest.

7. Analyze the end of chapter Bill Beam case. a. Analyze negligent retention against the Athletic Director i. Given that you had understood the grievances against Beam, you would be held liable for negligent retention for keeping or not disciplining Beam after hearing about the grievances and issues he had caused amongst the community and team. The athletic director understands their responsibility in upholding a safe working environment, and not disciplining someone who jeopardizes that safety is negligence on behalf of the director, and more specifically negligent retention. b. Analyze negligent hiring against Midwest University i. There would be negligent hiring for the University since they were aware of Beam’s violent temper and history of abuses against his players and associates. The fact that the University went forward with hiring despite having an understanding of these issues lends itself to a cause of action on the grounds of negligent hiring by the university.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help