John Stokely and AAA Auto Dealers: Case Analysis

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?

Separate Opinions: Judgment was affirmed by Judges Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ. , as they believed Allen was discharged for taking unauthorized breaks from her scheduled employment. Since Allen failed to present evidence of a discriminatory motive from Isotoner, or that reason for releasing her from employment was a ground for discrimination, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ. felt only the issues presented by the facts of Isotoner discharging Allen due to ‘unauthorized breaks’ should be decided on, while issues of the facts not directly placed on issue should only be responded to with advisory opinion.

Use the BUGusa, Inc. scenarios and your research to support your answers to the questions listed in the worksheet, classifying the types of torts in each scenario.

Lyn may hire employees to work in the Main St. Computer Store that she manages despite the fact that her employment agreement with Main St. says nothing about her being able to hire employees. This is

Thank you for bringing the following situations to my attention. I have completed my review of each case, and am providing my feedback accordingly. Please review the results below.

Had he been wearing the safety belt, he would not have been killed. The second defense that Ford Motor Company has is that the purpose of a car is to drive it and not to crash a car so that it spun. Since, the door flew open during a spin, Ford Motor Company was not liable for the death of Chancit. The normal use of a car is not to send it into a spin. The third defense that Ford Motor Company has is that Chancit was suffering from food poisoning and was unwell, that was why he was thrown out of the car. The fourth defense is that the car is meant for normal driving. The safety measures in the car were adequate for normal driving. Since, Chancit was driving in a closed lane and possibly at a speed that was higher than that permitted, Ford Motor Company was no liable. III. The City of Los Angeles is liable of negligence. The sign board it placed said Left lane closed ahead, whereas, it was Right lane closed ahead. The City of Los Angeles had a duty of care to ensure that it placed the correct signs so that motorists were not misguided. There was a breach of duty because the City of Los Angeles placed the wrong sign and this misguided Chancit into an accident. There was direct cause between the placement of the wrong sign and the accident that killed Chancit. There was legal causation. Chancit suffered harm because he was killed. In other words, the City of Los Angeles is guilty of negligence. The court will rule in favor of Chancit and award his widow

Under the “Inappropriate Conduct” section in the employee handbook, employees are subjected to discipline, including discharge

3. Mr. Theurer did not act within the scope of his employment, as per McDonald’s informal policy. Theurer did work more than one midnight shift per week, and he did work split shifts.

The appellants' understanding about the statute is that they (as employees) were protected by the carve-out pre-existence jurisdictions that excluded workers' involvement in handling any forms of either animal and/or vegetable life that is aquatic, further confusing the guidelines for Maine's exemptions of overtime law. Their understanding was that this carve-out could have been justifiably applicable to workers that have been "employ[ed] in loading, unloading or packing…for shipment or in propagating, processing (other than canning), marketing, freezing, curing, storing or distributing various forms of aquatic forms of animal and/or vegetable life.” On the other hand, Oakhurst asserts that the legislative history should protect against any deliberate effects that can cause distortion under the overtime law. It argues that it's of essence that employer must implement rightful decisions towards ensuring that perishable food doesn't spoil. Therefore, the subject of exemplification from Maine's overtime law shouldn't be an

In Lochner, the Court emphasized that one’s freedom of contract could be interfered with only by a valid exercise of a state’s police power. Because the statute limited bakers to working ten hours a day and sixty hours a week, the majority concluded that the “statute necessarily interferes

1.4 Identify sources and types of information and advice available in relation to employment responsibilities and rights

Tonakanian was operating a cab through a contract with United Independent Taxi Drivers Inc. Tonakanian made an illegal left turn and crashed into Emanuele Secci, who was on a motorcycle and was severely injured. Secci alleged that Tonakanian negligently failed to yield to oncoming traffic and that United was vicariously liable for Secci’s negligence. United alleged that Tonakanian was an independent contractor and was was not liable for his negligence.

4. Is it legal for the company to terminate an employee because of something they did away from work?

Joseph, N.A. v. State, 251 Kan. 207, 210, 833 P.2d 996, 999 (1992). The conduct does not have to be authorized by the employer, but rather be foreseen from the nature of the employment. Id. at 210, 833 P.2d at 999. An employee is still acting within his scope of employment when he slightly deviates from the employer’s business. Wayman v. Accor North America, Inc., 45 Kan. App. 2d 526, 532, 251 P.3d 640, 646 (2011). An employee is acting with the scope of his employment when he is conducting services for the employer’s business and not for personal reasons. Id. at 532, 251 P.3d at

Furthermore, my client’s supervisor will testify that Jones & Jones’ warehouse manager conducts random supervised ride – once a month to check on the safety of their drivers. So as you consider the evidence from opposing counsel on this issue, we simply ask you to determine whether my client’s deposition testimony is a reflection of a lack of training, or simply the result of misunderstanding a term while under the pressure of a deposition.