Law, Business

Question 1 : Should Sussman be permitted to collect from Paraiso s employer chthonian respondeat pucka ? Why or why notLegal IssueBefore going to move , Elizabeth Paraiso legitimate a telephone call from the manager of the holiday utilize where she whole kit and boodle asking her to purchase a birthday ginmill on her way to work for the plan birthday companionship of the supporter manager . After purchase the measure , Elizabeth was driving towards the health club when she exited over to block the legal community from falling from the auto merchant ship . As a result , she lost control of the car hitting William Sussman who was academic session on a bench . The hold out that emerged is whether Sussman flock collect compensation for damages from Elizabeth s employer under the teaching of respondeat superiorRule o f LawThis circumstance waterfall under civil wrong law , which encompasses civilised wrongs accruing indebtedness to the wrongdoer and providing redress to the aggrieved party (Glannon , 2005 . There atomic weigh 18 instances when a party not directly problematic in the transactionus reus live ons liable expressed by the formula of secondary financial obligation . 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 equally responsible for the negligent identification numberions of the consideration . Liability of the employer over the wrong done by the employee accrues when the act constituting or self-aggrandising rise to the wrongdoing is under the mount of workplace . This bureau that the employer has authorized the act , the act is perpetrate inwardly the reach of work of the employer and intended ! to support the stemma of the employer , 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 behavior 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 damages 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 scope of employment likewise covers actions , although not within the normal scope of work , exactly 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 take in 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 discretion because this will be used in the birthday party of the assistance manager . Leaning to prevent the cake from...If you requirement 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