Case Study: Vicarious Liability and Intentional Torts in Law of Torts

This case study analyzes a Law of Torts scenario involving Empire Courier Service and its employee, Dave. The assignment focuses on determining liability for Dave's actions, including a car accident caused by his negligence and an intentional tort of battery against Victor. The analysis applies the doctrine of vicarious liability, considering whether Dave was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. It also examines the elements of battery and potential defenses such as provocation. The solution concludes that Empire Courier is liable for Dave's negligence due to vicarious liability, while Dave is held liable for the intentional tort of battery. The document references relevant legal principles and supporting case law, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal concepts involved.

Running head: LAW OF TORTS
LAW OF TORTS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LAW OF TORTS
Issue
i) To determine who shall be held liable for Dave’s negligence for causing the car
accident
ii) To determine who shall be liable for Dave’s intentional tort for punching Victor
Rule or Law
Under the doctrine of vicarious liability or ‘respondeat superior’, an employer could
be held liable for the negligent act or omission of his employee, if such employee was acting
in the course of his employment (Luntz et al., 2017). It is applicable between people sharing a
specific relationship, where one person is in a superior or advantageous position to the other,
like master-servant, employer-employee, teacher-student, doctor-nurse, et cetera. The
essential elements establishing vicarious liability of an employer are:
a) The employer holds the right to control the work of the employee as well as the
method of executing the work;
b) Length of work and Payment of wages;
c) Contract of service.
In United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947), the Supreme Court had discussed the factors
that should be considered to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent
contractor.
According to the principles of intentional torts, battery is referred to the harmful act
voluntarily caused by a person, intentionally or negligently to hurt the other (Sharkey, 2019).
It is a tort as well as a criminal act. The essential requisite to establish an act if battery is:
a) There was a direct contact between the tortfeasor and the claimant;
b) Such contact has caused hurt to the claimant;

2LAW OF TORTS
c) The tortfeasor intended to make contact with the claimant (under law of tort) in order
to injury the claimant (criminal offence)
Defences like provocation, self-defence, consent or necessity could be cited by the
tortfeasor against the claimant (Deakin, 2018).
Application
In the given case, Dave was a driver for Empire Courier service, implying that he was
an employee of the courier service company. The company controlled his work schedule as
well as his mode of work, the company vehicle is an example of this. The accident arising out
of negligence that injured Victor occurred in the course of Dave’s employment as he was
there for lunch in between deliveries. It was act of negligence arising in the course of Dave’s
employment, therefore holding Dave’s employer, Empire Courier service liable for the initial
car accident that injured Victor.
On the other, the further injury caused to Victor as Dave punched him was an
intentional act. There was a direct and forceful contact caused by Dave towards Victor. Such
forceful contact certainly caused Victor some additional injury. Dave threw the punch at
Victor intentionally to hurt him, thereby causing him an injury. Although, Dave could state
the defence of provocation for his action as he was indeed provoked by Victor by insulting
Dave’s company. However, Dave shall be held liable for causing hurt to Victor intentionally.
Conclusion
Therefore, Empire courier services shall be held liable for Dave’s negligence for
causing the car accident. However, Dave shall be held liable for causing the intentional tort
against Victor.

3LAW OF TORTS
References
Deakin, S. (2018). Organisational Torts: Vicarious Liability versus Non-Delegable Duty. The
Cambridge Law Journal, 77(1), 15-18.
Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Harder, S., & Grant, G.
(2017). Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.
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.
United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947)