Issue No. 1: Is Leo liable for assault towards Ellen?
Issue No. 2: Is Leo job responsible for actions?
Issue No. 3: Does Ellen have an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action?
Issue No. 4: Is Leo liable for negligence?
Rule No 1: An act intended to create a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm that is either harmful or offensive”.
Rule No. 2: The employee required the employee to work under the direction and control of the employer; the employer had inherent authority to control the employee; and the employee’s actions are within the scope of employment.
Rule No. 3: Outrageous conduct by the defendant; the defendant’s intention of causing or reckless disregard of probability of causing emotional distress; the…show more content… She tried to escape but wasn’t fast enough to escape his grasp. Here, Ellen perceived and reasonably believed that she about to be touched in a harmful manner. Leo created fear in Ellen, and thus, this element is clearly met.
Moreover, the following element whether Leo cause of imminent harm to Ellen. Leo threatened to touch Ellen in a harmful manner, it reasonably appeared to her that Leo was about to carry out his threat. Ellen thought her life was in danger. She did not consent to Leo’s conduct, as matter of fact, his conduct was unwelcome. It is likely that Ellen satisfy this element.
Lastly, the final element of an assault was whether Leo’s touching was either harmful or offensive or both. Leo conduct presented both a physical threat and/or offensive behavior caused Ellen to be taken to the ER. Ellen was harmed and Leo’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Ellen’s harm. Thus, this element has been satisfied.
Analysis No. 2: Since Leo and Ellen are employed by the same company which makes them co-workers there is a Respondeat superior which forms a relationship under the theory of vicarious liability. The employer had control over the employees during work hours and the employer benefits from the actions of the employees. Here, Leo and Ellen were on lunch hour in the company cafeteria when she was harmed and offensively touched by Leo. It is reasonably foreseeable in that Leo tortious act was committed