Menu

UNIT6

0 Comment

PART ONE What primary sources did you use?Bussard v. Minimed, Inc.,105 Cal. App. 4th 798 (respondeat superior, vicarious liability), OShea v. Welch,350 F.3d 1101 (vicarious liability)2.What secondary sources did your use?LexisNexis Dictionary: Respondeat Superior: The doctrine under which liability is imposed upon an employer for the acts of his employees committed in the course and scope of their employment. Vicarious Liability: A liability imposed upon one person because of the act or omission of another, such as his employee.3.What search terms did you use for each search?Vicarious liability, employer-employee, respondeat superior, employment 4.What search method did you use (Terms amp. Connectors, Natural Language, and/or Easy Search)?Natural Language and Easy Search PART TWO Within this case, AAA Dealers would not be liable for John’s negligence. Within Bussard v. Minimed, Inc. an employer is held liable when there is foreseeability that a risk occurs within the employee’s actions. Bussard v. Minimed, Inc. 105 Cal.App.4th 798 (2003). This is covered under the theory of respondeat superior. Id. In Bussard, the employee inhaled fumes while at work and decided to leave work. Id. On her way back from work, she got into a car accident and sued her employer for vicarious liability. Id. Here, the Court used the foreseeability analysis which examines whether the employee’s conduct and whether it is so surprising that it cannot be fairly attached to the employer. Id. In O’Shea v. Welch, the Court found that vicarious liability is limited to injuries caused within the scope of the employer’s employment. O’Shea v. Welch, 350 F.3d 1101 (2003). This may extend to injuries that are reasonable incidental to that employment. Id. This would be interpreted as the employer reasonably being able to foresee these injuries as a result of the employer’s acts. Id. In O’Shea, a store manager drove from his store toward the district office of the company he worked for. During the drive, the store manager decided to turn his car into the service station. Id. At that time, he got into a car accident and as a result, the plaintiff sued both the driver and his employer for negligence and vicarious liability under the theory of respondeat superior. Id. In our case pattern, John was performing his duties as an employer by driving to the manufacturing facility for the dealership that he works for. Therefore, he was acting within the scope of his employment. However, even though his boss was with him, John’s side frolic to go to his cousin’s house for dinner is not foreseeable in the work that needed to be performed. It was not a detour in the road that John needed to take because of construction on the road that lead him to the accident. John himself decided to go on a frolic to his cousin’s house that was not reasonably foreseeable by the employer. Under the theory of respondeat superior, an employer is responsible for his employer’s actions during the course of employment while on the job. Vicarious liability extends the liability for negligence from the negligent person to his employer. John was not acting within the scope of his position and therefore, AAA Dealers will not be held vicariously liable under the theory of respondeat superior.