Introduction
Carz Bazaar is a dealership that deals with vehicles. In this case, the primary focus is to determine whether the firm is legally liable for the accident that one of the employees caused, leading to injuries to two people (Kidd, 2019). Wilson is an employee at the company. The company requires that each employee record their transactions when delivering or moving cars from the dealership. One afternoon, Wilson took a car and went out for lunch. Wilson committed an accident that injured a driver and a passenger. The driver and the passenger intend to sue the company for the accident because it was caused by one of the employees.
However, the case must provide the ultimate arguments to support its legal foundation in suing the firm for the accident. The company may offer specific arguments to defend against the vicarious tort claims. The goal of this case is to determine the arguments that the plaintiff and the defendants may offer against Wilson’s action. In this assessment, it is established that Wilson was responsible and guilty of the accident (Silver, 2023). However, more insights are needed to establish the arguments that the defendants and plaintiff may provide to support their case based on the events recorded. In this report, the primary focus is determining the arguments from the two dimensions and exploring their alignment with the presented issue.
Part 1: Arguments in favor of the Plaintiffs
In developing arguments that will favor accident victims, the primary issue to consider is the responsibility of defining the relationship between the driver and the company. The accident victims may focus on the concept of respondent superiority (Van Loo, 2020). In this concept, the primary focus is for the accident victims to prove that the employer is legally responsible for the actions that their employees undertake. In this context, it is essential to understand that the firm has a prevailing framework that requires the supervisors and the managers to coordinate the movement of vehicles across various locations. Under the respondent superior, the actions performed by one person are transferred to another through the principal-agent relationship. This concept applies in relationships between employers and employees where the actions performed by the latter are legally transferable to the former. However, this concept may not apply to independent contractors because they do not share the same legal capacity as employees in their relationships with employers.
From a legal dimension, the courts have argued that employers are vicariously responsible for the actions that their employees undertake. However, the employer may not be legally responsible for the actions resulting from the employees` actions when the latter deviate from the scope of their employment contracts (Silver, 2023). Such allocations must be considered when developing a case against the employer to ensure that the actions the employees performed are within the scope of vicarious considerations. These arguments may be applied to the case above involving Wilson and the accident that affected the plaintiffs.
The concepts defined above can be applied to determine the legal liability of the employer or the employee. In the case above, Wilson is responsible for the accident. The plaintiff may argue that the company is vicariously responsible for the actions that Wilson performed (Kidd, 2019). The rationale for this argument is that Wilson is a legal employee at the company and not an independent contractor. This attribute satisfies some requirements for transferring liability from an employee to the organization. The concept of agency law influences the rationale for this argument.
Under agency law, it is essential to understand the relationship between the employer and the employees. The employers are legally liable for the consequences of the actions that their employees undertake through agency law under the principal-agent relationship (Ehrenzweig, 2020). As an agent, Wilson has the legal capacity to act on behalf of the principal who represents the employer. It is essential to appreciate that this relationship forms the foundation for transferring liability to the employer. The plaintiff may argue that the employer controls the decisions that the employees undertake and, therefore, must understand the best interventions to avoid legal litigations. In the case above, Wilson is assumed to act in the employer’s capacity. Therefore, agency law shows that the employer is legally responsible for the actions performed by their employees.
The second argument is that the employer is responsible for the accident since Wilson acted within the prevailing operational procedures widely used at the company. It is reported that the company allowed employees to take vehicles depending on their needs. However, the company, through the employer, was negligent in ignoring the potential loopholes that its system exhibited concerning the movement of vehicles across the various locations (Silver, 2023). The plaintiff may claim that the company had a prohibition that limited the employee behavior and movement of cars. This prohibition shows that the employee must be on duty when the accident happened.
Such an argument will enable the plaintiff to reinforce that the employee operated within the scope of the underlying employment regulations. These regulations empower the employer with the necessary insights that would enable them to examine the employee’s behavior when on duty. It can, therefore, be argued that the company was negligent in ensuring that its internal policies and procedures were followed (Van Loo, 2020). The rationale for this argument is that the manager in charge did not record when Wilson took the vehicle. Similarly, the employer failed to prevent such incidents, as evidenced by neglecting their duty to ensure that the employees followed the implemented procedures. Negligence is one of the factors considered in the court when issuing judgments based on the damages that may arise due to the inability to implement the right procedures.
On the other hand, the plaintiff may argue that the employee was negligent in their actions, which led to the accident. Negligence is reflected in the accident since Wilson ignored the foundational aspects defining his workplace policies. This action reflects the failure of the employer to control the decisions made by the employees when interacting with the corporate resources. The accident shows that the company has insufficient policies to ensure compliance of the employees according to the presenting demands.
In this context, it is worth appreciating that the employer is, therefore, legally responsible for the damages caused by the employee since the firm was expected to ensure that the workers followed the laid procedures when moving cars. Also, Wilson took the car for personal reasons, which violated the firm’s policies (Van Loo, 2020). The employer is responsible for ensuring that the employees follow the required guidelines. However, the employer failed to coordinate its records, which led to the accident. Therefore, the employer is legally responsible for the liability caused by the accident.
Part 2: Arguments in Favor of The Defendant
The company may provide several arguments that will reduce the risks of legal liability from the accident that one of the employees caused. The company may argue that the employee acted against the regulations and policies provided to satisfy his personal needs. This event is evidenced by the fact that the employee took a car, and the transaction was not recorded (Luskin, 2020). Also, Wilson informed the manager that he would take the car for personal use. However, this action violates the foundational corporate procedures and policies. The company requires that the cars were taken to be recorded for further reference. However, employees are not expected to use company cars for personal use.
In the case above, Wilson acted in his personal capacity when he took the car during lunchtime. His behavior reflects a violation of the corporate policies that prohibit employees from such behavior. Therefore, the plaintiffs would be best matched to sue the driver and not the company. The driver violated the company’s policies when he took the car for his personal needs. In this context, Wilson was not scheduled under business duties (Kidd, 2019). Therefore, when the accident happened, the employee was not performing corporate duties, which reduced the overall liability towards the company. This argument shows that Wilson was responsible for his actions since he was not under corporate instructions to take a car to a designated destination.
On the same note, the company may argue using the agency law under the floric detour concept (Ehrenzweig, 2020). This concept may enable the company to defend itself against vicarious tort liability based on the accident that one of the employees committed. The company may argue that it has a policy that prohibits its employees from using its cars for personal purposes. However, it is essential to mention that the law does not support tort claims against an employer when an employee causes damages when operating beyond the employment scope.
The company may defend itself by arguing that the employee operated beyond the scope of the employment contract. In this context, the employee took care of without the authorization of the employer. This statement implies that Wilson was not an employee of the company when the accident happened since all movements are authorized by the employer (Luskin, 2020). In such an incident, the company defends itself against the legal liability of the accident, which would be held by the employee.
Secondly, Wilson acted outside the corporate duties when he took the car during lunchtime. This statement is evidenced by the fact that he took a car during lunch break. The company does not consider lunch break employment business. On the same note, Gina did not record the details of the car in the business book because she trusted Wilson (Luskin, 2020). This statement shows that the employee’s actions were not within the corporate business duties and requirements. On the same note, Wilson was not under the guidance of the employer when taking the car. Therefore, the accident happened when Wilson was not within the employment schedules and guidelines.
Likewise, the details of the transactions were not captured on the system, which is a requirement by the company. These details show that Wilson was beyond corporate policy and regulations when the accident happened. Under the agency concept, Wilson is solely responsible for the legal liability due to the accident since his actions were not a representation of the corporate requirements or guidelines (Ehrenzweig, 2020). This argument is supported by the respondent’s superior, where it is established that the employer’s actions were not within the corporate scope of work. It, therefore, follows that the firm is not entirely responsible for the legal liability since the employee was not within the scope of operations under the prevailing procedures.
Conclusion
Wilson was involved in an accident that caused injuries to two people. The victims intend to sue the firm for the accident since it was caused by one of the employees. In achieving this goal, the plaintiff has considered several aspects, like the responsibility of the employer and employee through the respondent superior. Under this concept, the plaintiffs hold the company responsible for the accident since the employer is responsible for the actions that the employees undertake. However, this argument may not hold since the defendant may use the floric detour concept. The goal of this concept is to provide the necessary defenses that would reduce the overall legal liability that the employer exhibits from the actions that the employees performed.
In this argument, the primary concept is that the plaintiff must prove that the employee was acting within the scope of his employer’s guidelines and directives. It is established that Wilson is an employee at the company. Therefore, the employer is legally liable for his actions. On the other hand, the employer has a schedule and policy that prohibits employees from taking cars for duties other than the designated business requirements. Wilson took the car for personal use, which falls above the scope of his employment terms. Therefore, the plaintiff should hold the employee responsible for the accident and not the company. This case is likely to favor the defendant because the employer was working beyond the expected work schedules and regulations. Therefore, the employee is legally responsible for the accident and not the employer.
References
Ehrenzweig, A. A. (2020). § 19. Employer and employee: Respondeat superior. In Negligence Without Fault (pp. 67-73). University of California Press.
Kidd, J. (2019). Agency, pluricorporality, and Respondeat Superior. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3435270
Luskin, R. 2020. Caring about corporate ‘due care’: Why criminal respondeat superior liability outreaches its justification. American Criminal Law Review, 57(2): 303-330.
Silver, K. (2023). When should the master answer? Respondeat Superior and the Criminal Law. Criminal Law and Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-023-09659-7
Van Loo, R. 2020. The revival of respondeat superior and evolution of gatekeeper liability. Georgetown Law Journal, 109: 141-189.
write