Case Study: Legal Analysis of Agency and Employer Liability

This case study analyzes a scenario involving agency and employer liability. The case involves a plaintiff, Alex, and defendants Monica, Becky’s, and Bethlehem Lodge. The analysis focuses on the application of agency law, vicarious liability, and the concept of respondent superior. The study explores the liability of Becky’s and Bethlehem Lodge, considering Monica’s actions and the scope of her employment. The case also touches upon negligent hiring and comparative negligence, evaluating the responsibilities of the parties involved. The conclusion highlights the legal responsibilities of each party, based on the facts and legal principles discussed. The assignment also provides references to relevant legal resources.

Plaintiff: Alex
Defendants: Monica, Becky’s and Bethlehem Lodge
Discussion/Arguments
As per the facts of the case, the law of Agency is applicable between Becky’s and Monica, where
both of them are in a relationship of Principal – Agent respectively. So, the law of agency says
that the principal is also liable for the consequences of the acts performed by the agent. As far as
the involvement of independent contractor is concerned, there is no single fact that suggest that
any of the relationships was independent contractor. The next is Vicarious Liability, in which the
law assigns a liability to one person because of injury caused by another person on the basis of a
legal relationship between them like employer-employee. So, in this case, the vicarious liability
shall 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 Superior
says that an injured party can claim the damages from the employer on whose behalf the
employee was working. So, the respondent superior liability clearly lies on Becky’s. The scope
of employment is applicable when the actions of employee are conducted for furthering of the
business of employer. So, in this case, Monica is working for furthering the business of both
Bethlehem and Becky’s. So, both of them will be liable for the injury. In so far as negligent
hiring is concerned, there was no such situation as Becky’s knew that Monica was its best
employee. When it comes to comparative negligence, Monica is most responsible for it. She was
well briefed by Mrs. Glenmont as to what needs to be done, however, she acted on her own
discretion resulting in an accident of Alex.

References
Employer Liability for an Employee's Bad Acts | Nolo.com. Nolo.com. Retrieved 14 October
2016, from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employer-liability-employees-bad-
acts-29638.html
When Can an Employer be Found Liable for an Act of an Employee?. Hg.org. Retrieved 14
October 2016, from https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34389