Tortious Liability Essay

• Harassment by a third party: employers are potentially liable for the harassment of staff or customers by people they don't directly employ, such as a contractor.

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?

A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

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.

• Was the employee acting in the course of employment when the tort was committed?

2. Maclntyre, Ewan. "The Law of Torts 1." Introduction to Business Law. 2nd ed. Essex: Pearson Education, 2012. 258-304. Print.

Jose Carcamo et al., Defendants and Appellants in the Supreme Court of California held that tort liability based on negligent hiring and retention is a cause of action distinct from vicarious liability based on respondeat superior. In the case against Jose Carcamo, it was stated he hit a car while driving his truck for his employer, causing Renae Diaz to lose control of her vehicle. The jury awarded Diaz $22.5 million in damages in which Sugar Transport, Carcamo’s employer, was also help liable based on its negligent hiring of Carcamo. Sugar Transport contended that while it is liable for Carcamo’s driving, it should not be held liable for negligent hiring and retention. The court reviewed negligent hiring and retention as theories of liability independent of vicarious liability. The court stated that the liability comes from hiring and retaining an employee who is unfit to conduct his or her duties. Due to the fact that the employer had sufficient enough reason to believe that undue harm could exist with the employment of Carcamo, they were held liable for negligent hiring. Carcamo’s driving history included previous accidents that were relevant to his job assignment. Sugar Transport thus disregarded his past driving record and the danger that could come with his driving for the company. The jury properly considered that evidence when apportioning fault for the

The first legal concepts we will cover are Torts. By definition a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Now when dealing with torts the first question that needs to be answer is a question of liability. There are: intentional liability, negligence liability, and strict

-If workers become injured, don’t make a living wage, are pushed into criminal activities through blackmail or a factory owners’ mistreatment, it is seen as the workers fault.

In the United States justice system, a tort is best defined as an injury or loss that was committed deliberately or negligently by a single person or an entity (Crane). The history of tort law can be traced back to the initial trespass of property or person, but it was not until the 18th century that the distinction between intentional and unintentional acts was made (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia). In recent years, tort law has become the center of scrutiny through the increase in tort costs, insurance liability costs, and the number of frivolous lawsuits made. This scrutiny has lead to the creation of tort reform. Tort reform is a movement to reshape the way consumers can access the courts by restricting their right to sue and

For instance, if a factory worker carrying out operations in a car manufacturing company gets injured on the job, the employee is liable. However if this worker decides to utilize the machine for personal purposes which are not official business purposes, then he would be regarded as acting outside the course of his employment. In this instance, the business will not be vicariously liable when any injury

The scenarios below provide several examples of torts to include negligence, unintentional torts, intentional torts, assault, battery, etc. Torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. These wrongs result in an injury or harm constituting the basis for a claim by the injured party (Cornell, 2010).

Evaluate and discuss the potential liability (negligence or other torts) of the various parties in the scenario involving but not limited to Bobby, ACE Sports, the nurse, the surgeon and City General. (Avoid simply restating the facts/scenario. Incorporate them into your discussion.)

Business Law-Law Business and Society states that torts are, “civil wrongs not arising from contracts.”(McAdams. P. 278) Torts involve a breach of duty resulting in loss and or injury. Negligence is defined as, “situations in which harm is caused accidently, and no intent is present.” (McAdams. p.279)

Many employees are not worth suing, therefore without the insurance industry the present tort system could not operate[4]. Vicarious liability forces the employer to continually strive for accident prevention. If every employee was insured individually it is unlikely that the employer would take such a keen interest as there is no direct liability. Employers generally therefore assess the suitability of the staff, give them adequate training and dismiss any that are unreasonably risky to reduce the risk of any torts occurring.