Empire Courier Case Analysis

This document analyzes the liability of Empire Courier Service for a car accident caused by negligence and a punching incident involving their employee. It discusses the concept of vicarious liability and applies it to the case. The conclusion states that Empire Courier Service is liable for both incidents.

Running head: EMPIRE COURIER CASE ANALYSIS
Empire Courier Case Analysis
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1EMPIRE COURIER CASE ANALYSIS
Empire Courier Case Analysis
Issue
Whether Empire Courier Service is liable for the car accident caused by the negligent act
of Dave or not. Whether Empire Courier Service is liable for Dave’s punching Victor or not.
Rule
The agency relationship is said to be created when a person, namely the principal has
appointed another person to act on his behalf. The agent is required to act for the benefit of
the principal. The agent owes a duty of loyalty towards the principal while performing his
duties. In the same manner, the principal is also liable for the acts done by the agent in the
furtherance of the agency or within the scope of the agency.
An agent is responsible for the acts torts committed himself. Moreover, the principal is
also bound by the acts committed by the agent in the scope of his employment. This also
includes the torts committed by the agent in the furtherance of or within the scope of agency.
The concept involving the incurrence of liability by the principle for the tortious acts
committed by the agent is termed a vicarious liability (Sharkey, 2019). The vicarious liability
is based on the principle that when a person is acting on behalf of the other, the acts of the
former binds the latter (Brennan et al., 2016). This principle is also applicable in case of the
torts committed by an agent intentionally. When an agent intentionally commits an act of tort
injuring a third party while discharging his functions as an agent, the principle will be held
liable for the tortious act of the agent (Emerson, 2017).
In the case of Manning v. Grimsley (1981), the court held the employer liable for the
intentional tort committed by the employee resulting in the injury to a third party for the
interference of the duties of the employee caused by the third party.

2EMPIRE COURIER CASE ANALYSIS
Application
In this instant case, Dave is a driver for Empire Courier Service, which makes him the
agent of the same. The accident was caused in a place where Dave has halted for Lunch
between two deliveries. This implies the same to be included within the scope of his
employment. Moreover, Dave was driving the company vehicle to make deliveries on behalf
of the company. Therefore, the acts committed during the same comes under the scope of the
employment. Hence, the accident caused by the negligence of Dave comes under the purview
of vicarious liability, as the same has been caused while performing his duties towards the
employer.
Again, after the accident, the injured, namely Victor was punched by the employee for
making hostile remarks about the Empire Courier Service. Applying the principles of
vicarious liability, the Empire Courier Service will be held liable for the intentional torts
committed by its employee. The same can be concluded by applying the principle followed in
the case of Manning v. Grimsley (1981).
Conclusion
Empire Courier Service is liable for the car accident caused by the negligent act of Dave.
Empire Courier Service is liable for Dave’s punching Victor.

3EMPIRE COURIER CASE ANALYSIS
Reference
Brennan, M., Marzheuser-Wood, B., Mellerio, R., Reufels, M., & Turitto, F. R. (2016). Joint
Liabilities for Franchisors: Employment, Vicarious Liability, Statutory and Other
Liabilities. Int'l J. Franchising L., 14, 3.
Emerson, R. W. (2017). An International Model for Vicarious Liability in Franchising. Vand.
J. Transnat'l L., 50, 245.
Manning v. Grimsley, 643 F.2d 20, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 19782 (1st Cir. Mass. Feb. 27,
1981)
Sharkey, C. M. (2019). Institutional Liability for Employees' Intentional Torts: Vicarious
Liability as a Quasi-Substitute for Punitive Damages. Valparaiso University Law
Review, 53, 18-35.