Vicarious Liability: A Critical Study Highlighting Cases

Running head- CASE STUDY: VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Case Study: Vicarious Liability
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

Case Study: Vicarious Liability1
Issue:
The primary issues in the given scenario are as follows:
Whether Le Pue SA will be liable for the injuries caused to Ms. Odorable based on vicarious
liability?
Whether Ms. Odorable can claim damages from Le Peu SA for such injury?
Rules:
The plaintiff must prove the following elements in order to prove the liability. They are-
1. Liability of the principal based on 2d of the Restatement of Torts in terms of
independent employee contracts
2. The scope of the employment defined for the understanding of the principal’s
liability for the agent’s tort.
3. Vicarious liability in order to determine the intensities of the injury occurred
to the plaintiff.
4. The amount of damage entitled based on the principal-agent relationship
Application:
The facts of the case state that Pepe Morel, the vice president of Le Pue SA, contacted
Mary Q to increase the marketing of their products in American markets. Mary Q being the
commercial realtors agrees with Le Pue SA. Mary was given many benefits, which included
the purchase of land, monthly salary, and also a Tesla Model X. On April 2, while driving
Mary accidentally lose control of her car which resulted in a car crash with Ms. Odorable.
Mary was all right but damaged the car whereas Ms. Odorable was seriously injured. After
three months of therapy, she was released from the hospital and her memory was partially
restored. After a few months, Ms. Odorable sued La Pue Sa for causing such injury and

Case Study: Vicarious Liability2
claimed damages based on the grounds of vicarious liability. In the following case study, Ms.
Odorable is the plaintiff, and La Pue SA is the defendant.
1. Liability of the principal in terms of independent employee contracts:
Ms. Odorable – According to 2d of Restatement of Torts Principal refers to the person for
whom an action is taken, and the agent refers to the person who is employed to perform the
act of the principal (books.lardbucket.org). In this case, the accident happens during the terms
of employment and the statute says that when an agent is working under the principle, the
liability of the principal becomes implied upon him. In the case of Gorton v. Doty, the
principal was held liable for the accident caused by its agent. Hence the principal is liable for
the activities conducted by the agent. In this La, Pue SA will be liable for the injuries caused
to Ms. Odorable out of the principal-agent relationship.
La Pue SA- According to the Restatement, an individual or company is not liable for any
tortious act committed by their agents who are signed as independent contractors. Under the
terms of employment, independent contractors do not suffice the obligations of a principal-
agent relationship. In the case of Anderson v. Marathon Petroleum Co, the principal was not
held liable for the actions of its independent contractor. Liability occurs when the agent
causes injuries during the terms of employment. In this case, the company mentioned that if
she was planning to see a property, she should contact the company first then do anything.
However, in the given scenario, Mary went out without informing the company, resulting in
such an accident that means she was not acting based on the terms of employment. Hence, the
company shall not be held accountable for the actions of its agent.
2. The Scope of Employment:
Ms. Odorable- As per the Restatement (Second) of Agency Section 228 states that the
conduct of an employee falls within the scope of employment if it fulfills the following