Case Against R. Thibodeaux Pharmacy For The Damages Sustained During The Car Accident With The Pharmacy 's Delivery

As the brand manager for Allround cold medicine, there were many decisions regarding product formulation, strategy, line extensions and product launches over the company’s last 10 periods. The brand was focused on remaining a profitable, mature product family within the cold medicine category, but also maintaining a premium brand image.

An employer can be vicarious liable for co-worker harassment under negligence principles if they knew or had reason to know or had reason to know that the harassment was occurring and did not take adequate steps to address the harassment (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d); EEOC v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc., 2010; Porter v. Erie Foods Int'l, Inc., 2009; Barrett, 2006; Mandell, 2005). Employers can also be held liable for harassment by a supervior. (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998; Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth,

38. Which of the following describes when an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts of the “servant” or employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment?

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

There is also the concept of secondary liability. This means that if, for example, an employment agency

1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra, 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra, 2011). The court meant that “negligent hiring and negligent retention do not rely on the scope of employment but address risks created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).

An employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions his employee commits during the course and scope of his employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In order for an employer to be liable there must be evidence that during the time of the negligent or omitted act, there was a master-servant relationship. Studebaker v. Nettie 's Flower Garden, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 229 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992); Jones v. Brashears, 107 S.W.3d 445 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Bargfrede v. American Income Life Ins. Co., 21 S.W.3d 160 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359 (Mo. 1963). Respondent superior applies when the master had the right or the power to control and direct the conduct of another. Bargfrede, 21 S.W.3d at 162. The master-servant relationship arises when the person charged as a master has the right to direct the method by which the master 's service is performed. Id.

Explain how respondeat superior and vicarious liability applies to employees of a health care facility. Include how these doctrines will apply not only to direct care givers but to office personnel and administration as well.

Good post! In regards to Respondent Superior, it brings to mind the case of D.D.N Versus Face, where a young lady was sexually assaulted by an employee of Festivals and Concert Events, Inc. The young lady was sexually assaulted at the festival. The victim asserted claims against FACE for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention, respondent superior, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and landowner's negligence. The courts found that there was sufficient evidence that she was sexually assaulted and the company was $750,000.

Now Mr. Clark reports being medication complaint he states he surfers with paranoia (4-6x monthly) and visual and auditory hallucinations (4-6x monthly). However, it is noteworthy, that Mr. Clark disclosed when he is not medication complaint he experiences visual and auditory hallucinations (daily); delusions (daily); paranoia (daily); and disorganized thoughts (daily).

There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Barnes did understand the label to constitute a representation in the form suggested. It was found that Glendale was negligent and in all circumstances, it was considered there was a duty on Glendale to include in the packaging a warning as to the consequences of using corrosive product with hot water in a confined space such as a drain. There was no specific defect with the caustic soda but the issue is whether it was defective within the meaning of Section 75AC. It was found by the court the label to be defective within the meaning of section 75AC.

A similar case where an employee claimed unlawful termination in comparable circumstances is Megivern v Glacier Hills Incorporated. In this case the employee, Megivern, alleged that her employer, Glacier Hills Inc. unlawfully terminated her due to her pregnancy. The judgement was ultimately given to Glacier Hills Inc and the termination was sustained. Glacier Hills was able to show the reasoning surrounding Megivern’s termination by providing her performance records. Megivern was a less than desirable employee and the timing of her termination was not due to pregnancy (Megivern v. Glacier Hills

NEGLIGENCE will be found if TEACHER OWED a DUTY, the duty was BREACHED, and the breach was both the ACTUAL CAUSE and the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES.

Pharmed First Inc. is a widely successful chain pharmaceutical company with 85 drugstores located in Canada’s Atlantic provinces. George Brenner is one of the 6 regional managers and Angela MacFee is a store manager in a mall located in Dartmouth. One of MacFee’s loyal customers have purchased 9 packages of Diet Magic on September 2011 however wanted to return them on May 2012. Subsequently, MacFee reacted hastily and defensively, arguing with Johnston in spite of Pharmed First Inc. return policy (Figure 1). As a result, Johnston wrote a letter to Frank Chen, the president of Pharmed First Inc. and told Brenner to deal with it. He proposed that the company gives Johnston a $500 voucher and that MacFee apologizes. However, MacFee remained inflexible as she also challenged Brenner’s authority.

The principle of vicarious liability is very controversial as it is quite broad, and the fact that personal fault on behalf of the employer is not required means that it is sometimes more difficult to attribute blame on big companies or corporations than individuals. However, there are many aspects of vicarious liability that make it suitable for its use. In nearly every case the employer is in the best position financially to compensate a claimant as they always have the ‘deepest pocket’. The whole purpose of the law of tort is to compensate the victims, the resources in question that enable the employer to have the ‘deepest pocket is provided through insurance.