Trusted by 2+ million users,
1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 1 of 2 pages
Plaintiff:AlexDefendants:Monica, Becky’s and Bethlehem LodgeDiscussion/ArgumentsAs per the facts of the case, the law of Agency is applicable between Becky’s and Monica, whereboth of them are in a relationship of Principal – Agent respectively. So, the law of agency saysthat the principal is also liable for the consequences of the acts performed by the agent. As far asthe involvement of independent contractor is concerned, there is no single fact that suggest thatany of the relationships was independent contractor. The next is Vicarious Liability, in which thelaw assigns a liability to one person because of injury caused by another person on the basis of alegal relationship between them like employer-employee. So, in this case, the vicarious liabilityshall lie on Bethlehem as it had asked Monica to wear a T-shirt with "Bethlehem Lodge--Staff"written on it, thereby making the lodge Monica’s employer. The law of Respondent Superiorsays that an injured party can claim the damagesfrom the employer on whose behalf theemployee was working. So, the respondent superior liability clearly lies on Becky’s. The scopeof employment is applicable when the actions of employee are conducted for furthering of thebusiness of employer. So, in this case, Monica is working for furthering the business of bothBethlehem and Becky’s. So, both of them will be liable for the injury. In so far as negligenthiring is concerned, there was no such situation as Becky’s knew that Monica was its bestemployee. When it comes to comparative negligence, Monica is most responsible for it. She waswell briefed by Mrs. Glenmont as to what needs to be done, however, she acted on her owndiscretion resulting in an accident of Alex.
Desklib Logo
You are reading a preview
Upload your documents to download or

Become a Desklib member to get access