Essay on Dewey Cheatum vs. Dawn, Dna Labs and Fast as We Can Deliver
804 WordsOct 15, 20124 Pages
Dewey Cheatum vs. Dawn, DNA Labs and Fast as We Can Deliver
Dawn is a driver for Fast as We Can Delivery. She is a long-time employee and has the use of her delivery vehicle to get her to and from work. One evening after she completed her shift, Dawn is asked by her supervisor, Ian Smart, to drop off a special package at the DNA Laboratories, a research institute funded by the state. Rather than driving straight to DNA after work, Dawn stops at a supermarket to pick up a few things she needs at home. After leaving the supermarket and on the way to DNA, Dawn's vehicle is involved in an accident with Mr. Dewey Cheatum. Mr. Cheatum seeks to bring an action against Dawn, DNA Labs, and Fast as We Can Deliver. One must examine…show more content…
She cannot absolve herself of liability, however, since she will still be personally liable for her tortious act.
FAST AS WE CAN DELIVERY LIABILITY
Dawn was, in general, acting on behalf of her employer when the accident occurred. A possible defense to this would be for her employer to claim Frolic and Detour. Dawn had stopped to do some shopping before heading to DNA Laboratories. Therefore, Fast as We Can Deliver could argue that she was furthering her own interests rather than the principals and therefore they should not be liable. However, courts commonly overlook minor deviations, and thus it is unlikely that this defense would stand. Also, since she was technically “off duty” at the time, the courts would likely find that it falls under the Dual-Purpose mission section of negligence (Cheeseman, 2010, p 477). Meaning that in most jurisdictions the liability would fall on both the principal and the agent if she injuries someone while on such a mission.
DNA LABORATORIES LIABILITY
The plaintiff in this case is obviously making the claim that DNA Laboratories and Dawn held am agency relationship. This type of agency would have to be implied, as Dawn and DNA Laboratories have not communicated to create an express agency contract (Cheeseman, 2010, p. 465). The Superior Court of Massachusetts stated in Bosse vs. Brinker Restaurant Corporation that three elements are required to form an agency relationship: consent of the