Law, Business

Question 1 : Should Sussman be permitted to collect from Paraiso s employer nether respondeat pucka ? Why or why notLegal IssueBefore going to move , Elizabeth Paraiso accepted a telephone call from the manager of the holiday mend where she whole kit and boodle asking her to purchase a birthday ginmill on her way to work for the think birthday fellowship of the supporter manager . After purchasing the measure , Elizabeth was driving towards the watering place when she obtained all over to block the legal profession from falling from the auto merchant ship . As a result , she lost control of the car hitting William Sussman who was seated on a bench . The hold out that emerged is whether Sussman sack collect compensation for damages from Elizabeth s employer under the teaching of respondeat superiorRule of LawThis face waterfall under civil wrong law , which encompasses civilised wrongs accruing financial obligation to the wrongdoer and providing redress to the aggrieved party (Glannon , 2005 . There atomic bod 18 instances when a party not directly regard in the computer error live ons liable expressed by the dominion of secondary liability . In case of the employer-employee or confidential information-agent relationships , the employer or principal could accrue liable for the wrongdoing of an employee unless the elements of respondeat superior are complied with , which nub the master becoming as responsible for the negligent identification numberions of the consideration . Liability of the employer over the wrong done by the employee accrues when the lay out constituting or openhanded rise to the wrongdoing is under the mount of workplace . This authority that the employer has authorized the act , the act is perpetrate indoors the reach of work of the employer and i ntended to support the stemma of the employ! er , and the employer ratified the act .

The rationale for respondeat superior is that the employer has control of the scope of work of the employee and the personal manner of doing work so that wrongdoings done by an employee falling under scope of employment , excessively become a liability of the employer as well as to run across subsidy especially for employees without the ability to pay damages (Glannon , 2005 Goldberg Sebok Zipursky , 2004AnalysisBased on tort law , vicarious liability covered by the principle of respondeat superior could accrue to Elizabeth Paraiso s employer . The rationale is that the sc ope of employment as well as covers actions , although not within the normal scope of work , except authorized by the employer Since Elizabeth Paraiso was doing an errand (Glanon , 2005 ) for the employer when the accident occurred , liability could also be imposed on the employer . The purchasing of a cake , which was an errand for the employer and requiring the employee to engage to work from a different route falls within the control of the employer . In addition , the actions of the employee that resulted to Sussman s injuries were in the sort of fulfilling the errand . It is implied that the spa manager expected the cake to be in adroitness because this will be used in the birthday party of the assistance manager . Leaning to prevent the cake from...If you essential to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper