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

1Case Study: Vicarious Liability
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

2Case Study: Vicarious Liability
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

3Case Study: Vicarious Liability
criteria that the conduct is the kind of work the agent was engaged to execute, the act has
occurred within the authorized time occurred due to serve the principal. In the given
scenario, Mary was working within the scope of employment. As she was given a task to
search for the plot which she was doing. That means she was acting on behalf of the
principal and the work she was doing was a kind of work she was employed to do
(Law.uh.edu). Section 229 further states that any unauthorized conduct on behalf of the
principal would be considered to be within the scope of the terms of employment between the
principal and the agent. Hence in the given scenario, Mary would be considered to work
within the scope of employment, making La Pue Sa liable for the conduct of its agent.
La Pue SA- According to the Restatement section 228, it states an agent suffices the scope
of the employment upon fulfilling specific criteria. In the following situation, Mary did not
suffice those conditions as she was not working by the knowledge of the company nor the
work she was doing was the work of the company she was employed to do. She was
working for her personal use and not as per the company. Hence, the company shall not be
held responsible for the act of Mary as she was not working under the scope of
employment. For the following reasons, La Pue SA shall not be held for any act or
its agent.
3. Vicarious liability:
Ms. Odorable – According to the principal of Vicarious liability it means the implied
liability of the principal for the damages caused by the agent to a third party (Giliker).

4Case Study: Vicarious Liability
Applying this rule, the principal or the employer shall be held liable for the damages and
injuries caused to a third party by the agent. In the case of Bazley v Curry, the court held the
company liable for the agent’s misconduct and responsible for the damages. Employers can
be vicariously held liable for the tortious act of its employee under the “respondent superior
doctrine.” This doctrine states the liability of the principal to a third party for the injuries of
any third person or any third party by the agent working under the scope of employment. In
order to prove the liability as per this doctrine, the scope of the terms of employment is
necessary to been established. Mary fulfills the conditions of working under the scope of
employment to the company. Hence any damage caused by her during employment, the
company will be held liable for that.
La Pue Sa – As per the “Respondent Superior doctrine” or “Vicarious liability,” the
employer
will only be held liable for the actions of its employee who is working under the scope of the
terms of employment. Employees or the agents acting for their work would not
qualify the conditions as per the Restatement of Agency. In the case of Mohamed v. WM
Morrisons, the company, was not held liable for the employee's actions. In the given scenario
Mary caused the accident and caused the injuries to Ms. Odorable during her
work and not under the terms of employment. Mary met with an accident with Ms. Odorable
during her search for a plot, and the company did not know about her activity. There
were instructions given to Mary that whenever she was visiting any plot, she should contact

5Case Study: Vicarious Liability
the company first. However, in this scenario, the company did not know her actions and will
presume that it was her work she was doing and not any work she was
employed to do by the company. Hence, in the above-given scenario, La Pue SA shall not be
held liable for the agent’s act as Mary was not acting during the scope of employment.
4. Entitlement to claim damages:
Ms. Odorable- According to the above explanations it is clear that Mary was working during
employment and the work she was doing was purely for the company La Pue
SA. The doctrine of vicarious liability states the liability of the principal or the employer for
the injuries caused to any third party by the agent who has caused it during
employment. In the above case scenario, it has been proved that Mary’s act would govern
under the scope of employment hence making the company liable for the injuries caused to
her based on the doctrine of vicarious liability. So, Ms. Odorable shall be liable
claiming the damages from La Pue SA.
La Pue SA- In the above situations, it is already proved that La Pue Sa has no liability for
the act of Mary as she was not working under the terms of employment, and the nature of
work she was doing was not the kind of work she was employed for. So the doctrine of
Vicarious liability cannot apply to the Company as it has no liability for such.
(Beever). The damage was caused to Ms Odorable by Mary for some personal purpose, and
the company was not at all involved for the for she was doing; neither had any knowledge of
the same. Hence, Ms. Odorable will not be liable to claim such damages from La Pue SA.

6Case Study: Vicarious Liability
Conclusion
As per the conditions stated by Ms. Odorable, the company La Pue SA will be held
liable for the damages caused to her based on the principle of Vicarious liability, and hence,
Ms. Odorable will also be able to claim damages for the same.

7Case Study: Vicarious Liability
Reference
2014books.lardbucket.org. "Liability Of Principal And Agent; Termination Of
Agency." 2014Books.Lardbucket.Org,2020,https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/
the-legal-environment-and-business-law-executive-mba-edition/s15-liability-of-
principal-an-age.html.
Anderson v. Marathon Petroleum Co, 801 F.2d 936
Bazley v. Curry 2 SCR 534 at 548
Beever, Allan. A Theory Of Tort Liability. Hart Publishing, 2016.
Giliker, Paula. "Vicarious Liability ‘On The Move’: The English Supreme Court And
Enterprise Liability." Journal Of European Tort Law, vol 4, no. 3, 2014. Walter De
Gruyter Gmbh,
Gorton v. Doty 69 P.2d 136
Law.uh.edu. Law.Uh.Edu, 2020, http://www.law.uh.edu/assignments/spring2014/30114-
first.pdf.
Mohamed v. WM Morrisons 93 CLR 561.