Law of Torts Case Study 2022

Running head: LAW OF TORTS
LAW OF TORTS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

LAW OF TORTS
1
Issue
i) To determine who shall be held liable for Dave’s negligence for causing the car
accident
ii) To determine who shall be liable for Dave’s intentional tort for punching Victor
Rule or Law
Under the doctrine of vicarious liability or ‘respondeat superior’, an employer could
be held liable for the negligent act or omission of his employee, if such employee was acting
in the course of his employment (Luntz et al., 2017). It is applicable between people sharing a
specific relationship, where one person is in a superior or advantageous position to the other,
like master-servant, employer-employee, teacher-student, doctor-nurse, et cetera. The
essential elements establishing vicarious liability of an employer are:
a) The employer holds the right to control the work of the employee as well as the
method of executing the work;
b) Length of work and Payment of wages;
c) Contract of service.
In United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947), the Supreme Court had discussed the factors
that should be considered to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent
contractor.
According to the principles of intentional torts, battery is referred to the harmful act
voluntarily caused by a person, intentionally or negligently to hurt the other (Sharkey, 2019).
It is a tort as well as a criminal act. The essential requisite to establish an act if battery is:
a) There was a direct contact between the tortfeasor and the claimant;
b) Such contact has caused hurt to the claimant;