Mitch Landsing 's Case Against R. Thibodeaux Pharmacy

Additional Damages– The Courts felt that the employer owes an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in the way in which it dismisses an employee. They did not condone terminating employees in a callous and insensitive way and showing no regard for well-being when terminating an employee. The plaintiff Mr. Beatty stated that his termination was carried out in a dishonest, unfair and insensitive way even though the termination was “without cause”. He was called to Mr. Lebeter’s office and informed of his dismissal and given his letter of termination. He stated this

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).

Defendants, Mark and William Schenkly, have not satisfied the elements required to invoke the shopkeeper’s privilege defense. Conduct by the suspect which lead a shopkeeper to believe that the suspect is attempting to steal is enough to establish reasonable cause. In assessing reasonable cause to detain, Arizona courts consider whether appearances are sufficient to justify a shopkeeper’s belief is reasonable. Kon v. Skaggs Drug Center, Inc., 563 P.2d 920, 922 (1977); Gau v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., 901 P.2d 455, 459 (1995). Defendant Mark Schenkly did not see Mr. Flynn take beer from the cooler, nor did he observe that the beer was missing from the cooler. The statute setting forth the requirements for asserting the shopkeeper’s privilege provides that detainment may only take place for the sole purposes of questioning or

The probation officer explained to the observer that these individuals come in individually because the details of their case are more private than the others on Drug Court. In a very similar fashion, the Drug Court proceeded by the Judge asking for input from the probation officers as well as the service agency representatives. The observer noticed the main theme of Drug Court is for Judge Barrasse to verify the time spent in sobriety from each person. Upon hearing the answer, the entire room would respond with an applause. Unlike MHC, Drug Court consists of a series of four phases in which one graduates from in order to complete the entire program. The individual moves through the stages at the recommendation of the probation officer and in agreement with the treatment providers.

When developing drug court programs, drug courts should combine alcohol and other drug treatment services with the criminal justice system. The two complement each other and ensures success when participants are willing.

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.

Respondent superior applies when an employer had the right or the power to control and direct the conduct of another. Bargfrede, 21 S.W.3d at 162. When determining whether a party is a servant or independent contractor, the following factors, when viewed together, show whether control or the right to control the alleged servant’s conduct exists: the extent of control the master has over details of the work; whether the employee was involved in another occupation; the kind (under the direction of a master or an unsupervised specialist) of occupation; the skill require for the occupation; how instrumentalists, tools, and place of work are supplied; length of time for which the person is employed; method

If Petunia brings a lawsuit against CARDWARE and The Sporty One, the two companies will be held responsible for Noah’s behavior, under the doctrine of respondeat superior theory. Respondeat superior is when the employer can be liable for intentional torts of the employee that are committed within the course and scope of employment, just as the employer is liable for negligence (Miller, 2013). CARDWARE should not be liable for any injuries that may happen because of Noah’s behavior.

The legal theory of respondeat superior stands for the proposition that through vicarious liability a master may be liable for the acts of his or her servants in the course of his or her employment. Under this legal theory courts have found basketball teams labile for the actions of mascots employed by the team for the negligent acts of the mascot during the course of game. Accordingly, the Does can be found liable for the negligent acts of Bongo.

If the agent is not acting within the scope of employment, respondent Superior could not apply. For example, if a delivery truck driver was on the way to work and hit someone; respondent Superior would not apply. Is in the same scenario, the delivery truck driver was on his route and hit someone; respondent Superior could apply. The assignment from last week is also a great example of respondent superior not applying. Respondent Superior ultimately does not apply when the agent is acting with their personal interests in mind and not the interests of the employer.

A client was asked to take a drug test for his company that he has worked at for 15 years. My client’s job entails him to inspect finished products for the company. When the client was hired he was not hired under the pretensions of drug testing. When the employee refused to take the drug test he was fired. A similar case was experienced in California. Barbara Luck sued her ex-employer, where she had worked at for six years, Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPT) for firing her over refusing to take a drug test. When it went to court Luck was awarded $485,000 in damages. The jury had to decide whether the obligations Mrs.Luck was conducting in her everyday job duties could be considered to have an effect on the safety of others, for

Jordan v. Earthgrains Companies, Inc., 155 N.C.App. 762, 767, 576 S.E.2d 336, 339 (2003). In Jordan, the Court found the defendant CEO’s comments to current employees were not sufficient to support a claim of negligent misrepresentation. In part, the Court reasoned that the CEO’s duty of care ran to the corporation, not its employees.

Corning Incorporated is in negotiations to buy five homes in Corning's Houghton Plot neighborhood. The homes contain high levels of contaminations but for other homes, the stigma of potential contamination is affecting local real estate.

Furthermore, … “as one amicus rightfully pointed out, the exhaustion requirement imposed by the Appellate Division exceeds the obligation expressly imposed by the Legislature under N.J.S.A. 34:19–4, which requires only notice and opportunity to correct.” Id. at 388. There were never any measures taken by the company to correct their illegal activities. The employer had more than enough

Vicarious liability refers to the process in which another person is held responsible for another individual’s deleterious deeds. The business format franchisors who work towards achieving a common goal are always vulnerable to vicarious liability. The employer or boss of a person who by chance become negligent of his or her work and cause harm to individuals will be held responsible for the actions done by the employee. Therefore, as a way of ensuring the company or the employer is protected against the issues of being responsible for the wrong deeds in the organization or work, they should work close with the employees and ensure that they monitor all their actions to prevent the chances of wrong doings that can lead to harm.