Empire Courier Case Analysis

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.