Ask a question to Desklib · AI bot


4. 3. Case Study: Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden,

Added on -2019-09-16

| 4 pages
| 458 words

Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday

1Case Study: Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc.
2Summary In the given case, Ms. Judith was being involved in the accident of automobile which was causedby Ferry and he was the employee of the Nettie’s Garden Inc. Further, Ms. Judith filed a suit against the company using the theory of respondent superior. Nettie stated that Ferry was the contractor and was not the salaried or the hourly employee and they don’t have any control on or do not have any right in order to control the actions of Ferry (Twomey, D. 2012). Hence, the jurydidn’t agree and was in favor of Ms. Judith.Answer 1: It can be stated that the Nettie have the right in order to control the actions of Ferry during the time of accident. Ferry stopped during the end of the morning run but, he was en route to the Nettie’s office in order to check the packages or the parcels to further deliver them. Ferry was paid according to the deliveries and the agreement stated that he would also be paid for the stoppage at the office of downtown regardless of transporting anything.Answer 2: Ferry was following the route according to the list of the customers which was provided by Nettie in order to make the deliveries. Ferry set up the route himself according to the convenience to reach the respected locations timely. Further, the shop of pawn came within his route and he was supposed to stop there during his morning run. Hence, Ferry was following hi way from the shop of pawn to the offices of downtown and Ferry was acting as the Nettie’s employee.

Found this document preview useful?

You are reading a preview
Upload your documents to download
Become a Desklib member to get accesss

Students who viewed this