Law, Business

Question 1 : Should Sussman be permitted to collect from Paraiso s employer under respondeat pukka ? Why or why notLegal IssueBefore going to move , Elizabeth Paraiso authorized a telephone call from the manager of the holiday resort where she whole kit and boodle asking her to purchase a birthday ginmill on her way to work for the planned birthday party of the supporter manager . After purchasing the measure , Elizabeth was driving towards the spa when she reached over to block the cake from falling from the auto merchant ship . As a result , she lost control of the car hitting William Sussman who was sitting on a bench . The hold out that emerged is whether Sussman can collect compensation for damages from Elizabeth s employer under the teaching of respondeat superiorRule of LawThis case waterfall under tort law , which encompasses civilised wrongs accruing liability to the wrongdoer and providing redress to the aggrieved party (Glannon , 2005 . There atomic number 18 instances when a party not directly involved in the wrongdoing live ons liable expressed by the principle 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 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 giving rise to the wrongdoing is under the mount of workplace . This means that the employer has authorized the act , the act is perpetrate within 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 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 indemnity 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 also covers actions , although not within the normal scope of work , but 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 drive 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 tact because this will be used in the birthday party of the assistance manager . Leaning to prevent the cake from...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com

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