4. 3. Case Study: Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden,
Added on - 16 Sep 2019
1Case Study: Studebaker v. Nettie's Flower Garden, Inc.
2SummaryIn 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 suitagainst the company using the theory of respondent superior. Nettie stated that Ferry was thecontractor and was not the salaried or the hourly employee and they don’t have any control on ordo 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 thetime of accident. Ferry stopped during the end of the morning run but, he was en route to theNettie’s office in order to check the packages or the parcels to further deliver them. Ferry waspaid according to the deliveries and the agreement stated that he would also be paid for thestoppage 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 byNettie in order to make the deliveries. Ferry set up the route himself according to theconvenience to reach the respected locations timely. Further, the shop of pawn came within hisroute and he was supposed to stop there during his morning run. Hence, Ferry was following hiway from the shop of pawn to the offices of downtown and Ferry was acting as the Nettie’semployee.