Yes. It really is Yes. It really is Week #7 Week #7 already!! already!! TORT LAWTORT LAW

****StarringStarring: Sonya, Sandra, Charles B., Cheryl B., : Sonya, Sandra, Charles B., Cheryl B., Jolie, Rachel, Tashara, Dawn, Susan, Andrea, Jolie, Rachel, Tashara, Dawn, Susan, Andrea,

Cynthia, Felicia, Susan, Megan, Vic, Tammy, Cheryl Cynthia, Felicia, Susan, Megan, Vic, Tammy, Cheryl K., Amanda, Erin, Laurie, David, Wanda, Melissa, K., Amanda, Erin, Laurie, David, Wanda, Melissa,

Charles W., Tamica, and Delendell!!Charles W., Tamica, and Delendell!!

Guest starring: Adam Guest starring: Adam

What you need to do this What you need to do this week.week.

This unit will address the question This unit will address the question "Whom can you sue?" by focusing on "Whom can you sue?" by focusing on vicarious liability and joint liability, vicarious liability and joint liability, two of the most important concepts two of the most important concepts in tort law. in tort law.

There are 2 discussion questionsThere are 2 discussion questions We also have our next assignment We also have our next assignment

this week.this week.

Assignment 3: DraftAssignment 3: Draft This is a ROUGH DRAFT of the final paper….This is a ROUGH DRAFT of the final paper…. Your ultimate assigment (Research Your ultimate assigment (Research

Assignment 4) will be to draft a Assignment 4) will be to draft a memorandum of law to your supervising memorandum of law to your supervising attorney. It will be 8-10 pages in length. In attorney. It will be 8-10 pages in length. In that memo, you will have conducted that memo, you will have conducted research and evaluated the case law to research and evaluated the case law to determine which causes of action, if any, can determine which causes of action, if any, can be filed against the Church. This draft only be filed against the Church. This draft only needs to be about 4 pages long.needs to be about 4 pages long.

My advice is….My advice is…. Remember what you did for the first two Remember what you did for the first two

assignments….assignments…. In the first & second research assignments you In the first & second research assignments you

came up with all of the potential causes of action came up with all of the potential causes of action (i.e. false imprisonment, etc.) and their elements.(i.e. false imprisonment, etc.) and their elements.

In this assignment – you need to kick it up a notch In this assignment – you need to kick it up a notch AND now apply the facts in the case to the law (i.e. AND now apply the facts in the case to the law (i.e. false imprisonment) and analyze whether or not false imprisonment) and analyze whether or not false imprisonment or battery occurred.false imprisonment or battery occurred.

Remember that this is TORTS class – so stick to the Remember that this is TORTS class – so stick to the INTENTIONAL TORTS and NEGLIGENCE when INTENTIONAL TORTS and NEGLIGENCE when discussing the different causes of action.discussing the different causes of action.

Here is a quick review of Here is a quick review of Intentional Torts:Intentional Torts:

There are 7 main ones:There are 7 main ones: 1) Assault1) Assault 2)Battery2)Battery 3) False Imprisonment3) False Imprisonment 4) Trespass to Property (land)4) Trespass to Property (land) 5) Trespass to Chattels (personal property)5) Trespass to Chattels (personal property) 6) Conversion 6) Conversion 7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

(was the behavior – extreme and outrageous?)(was the behavior – extreme and outrageous?)

AND also a quick review AND also a quick review of the elements of of the elements of

Negligence:Negligence: 1) DUTY1) DUTY 2) BREACH OF THE DUTY2) BREACH OF THE DUTY 3) CAUSATION: Was there actual 3) CAUSATION: Was there actual

AND proximate causeAND proximate cause 4) Were there any DAMAGES 4) Were there any DAMAGES

suffered?suffered?

Let’s start with Let’s start with Vicarious Liability:Vicarious Liability:

Who know’s what Vicarious Liability Who know’s what Vicarious Liability is?is?

Take a stab at it!Take a stab at it!

Vicarious LiabilityVicarious Liability

Under the doctrine of Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, an vicarious liability, an individual individual is held liable for the tortious acts of is held liable for the tortious acts of another. These acts are imputed to him because another. These acts are imputed to him because of the special relationship he holds to the of the special relationship he holds to the tortfeasor.tortfeasor.

The most common relationship is the one The most common relationship is the one between employer and employee, in which the between employer and employee, in which the employer is held vicariously liable for the employer is held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of her employee.tortious acts of her employee.

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPRELATIONSHIP

An employer is vicariously liable for the acts of an An employer is vicariously liable for the acts of an employee under the doctrine of employee under the doctrine of respondeat respondeat superior, which translates as “let the person superior, which translates as “let the person higher higher up answer.”up answer.”

The rationale most commonly used to justify this The rationale most commonly used to justify this doctrine is that employers should consider the doctrine is that employers should consider the expense of reimbursing those injured by their expense of reimbursing those injured by their employees as part of the cost of doing business. As employees as part of the cost of doing business. As a practical matter, keep in mind that typically the a practical matter, keep in mind that typically the employee is judgment-proof, whereas the employee is judgment-proof, whereas the employer is the proverbial “deep pocket.”employer is the proverbial “deep pocket.”

This is an IMPORTANT point to This is an IMPORTANT point to remember!!remember!!

For the doctrine to be For the doctrine to be applicable the employee must applicable the employee must be acting “within the scope be acting “within the scope and furtherance of his and furtherance of his employment.”employment.”

Intentional Torts and Vicarious Intentional Torts and Vicarious LiabilityLiability

What if an employee intentionally injures another?What if an employee intentionally injures another?

The employer will still be liable as long as the tort is The employer will still be liable as long as the tort is reasonably connected to the employee’s job. A company reasonably connected to the employee’s job. A company may be liable, for example, for false imprisonment may be liable, for example, for false imprisonment committed by an overzealous security guard who committed by an overzealous security guard who unreasonably detains a customer she suspects of unreasonably detains a customer she suspects of shoplifting or for assault and battery committed by an shoplifting or for assault and battery committed by an employee who resorts to Rambo-style techniques in employee who resorts to Rambo-style techniques in trying to collect a debt for the company. trying to collect a debt for the company.

The employer will not be liable if the employee’s acts The employer will not be liable if the employee’s acts are driven by some purely personal motive, such as are driven by some purely personal motive, such as vengeance.vengeance.

Frolics and DetoursFrolics and Detours An employer is not vicariously liable when an employee An employer is not vicariously liable when an employee

goes on a “frolic” or “detour” of his own. Suppose an goes on a “frolic” or “detour” of his own. Suppose an employee of a pizza parlor, having completed his employee of a pizza parlor, having completed his deliveries, drives twenty miles out of his way for a little deliveries, drives twenty miles out of his way for a little rendezvous with his girlfriend. His twenty-mile side trip rendezvous with his girlfriend. His twenty-mile side trip would likely be considered a “frolic” or “detour” and, would likely be considered a “frolic” or “detour” and, under the traditional view, his employer would not be under the traditional view, his employer would not be vicariously liable for any acts of negligence he might vicariously liable for any acts of negligence he might commit. However, if the employee became involved in commit. However, if the employee became involved in an accident while en route back to the pizza parlor, the an accident while en route back to the pizza parlor, the employer would once again become vicariously liable employer would once again become vicariously liable because once he got back on track, the employee would because once he got back on track, the employee would be acting within the scope of his employment.be acting within the scope of his employment.

Under the more modern Under the more modern view….view….

Under the more modern view, the employee would Under the more modern view, the employee would be seen as acting within the scope of her be seen as acting within the scope of her employment if her deviation from her business employment if her deviation from her business purpose was “reasonably foreseeable.” Under thispurpose was “reasonably foreseeable.” Under thisapproach an employee whose deviation is slight in approach an employee whose deviation is slight in terms of time and distance is considered acting terms of time and distance is considered acting within the scope of her employment even when she within the scope of her employment even when she is on a personal errand. The reasoning underlying is on a personal errand. The reasoning underlying this approach is that employers should be liable for this approach is that employers should be liable for those things that can generally be anticipated as those things that can generally be anticipated as one of the risks of doing business.one of the risks of doing business.

Is the employer liable even if she explicitly Is the employer liable even if she explicitly forbidsforbids

the employee to engage in certain acts and thethe employee to engage in certain acts and theemployee does so anyway?employee does so anyway?

Yes, as long as the acts are done within the Yes, as long as the acts are done within the scope and furtherance of employment. scope and furtherance of employment. Suppose a store expressly forbids its Suppose a store expressly forbids its employees from using physical force to employees from using physical force to detain someon suspected of shoplifting. The detain someon suspected of shoplifting. The store will nevertheless be vicariously liable store will nevertheless be vicariously liable for the negligence of it employees who for the negligence of it employees who countermand those orders, and wrestle to countermand those orders, and wrestle to the ground and hogtie an uncooperative the ground and hogtie an uncooperative customer whom they suspect of shoplifting.customer whom they suspect of shoplifting.

Here is the first discussion Here is the first discussion board question this week:board question this week:

Kent owns a flower shop. He has one driver for the Kent owns a flower shop. He has one driver for the flower shop, Mike. Kent suspects that Mike runs some flower shop, Mike. Kent suspects that Mike runs some personal errands during the day; however, Mike is so personal errands during the day; however, Mike is so efficient that Kent does not mind. Mike gets into an efficient that Kent does not mind. Mike gets into an accident. The driver of the car sues Kent and the accident. The driver of the car sues Kent and the flower shop on the theory of flower shop on the theory of respondeat superiorrespondeat superior. .

What information would you need to collect from What information would you need to collect from Kent and Mike to determine if he will be held Kent and Mike to determine if he will be held ultimately liable for the injuries? You must list and ultimately liable for the injuries? You must list and explain all of the elements and how they will explain all of the elements and how they will determine if Kent will be liable or not. determine if Kent will be liable or not.

EMPLOYERS & INDEPENDENT EMPLOYERS & INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORSCONTRACTORS

Generally, one who hires an independent Generally, one who hires an independent contractor will not be held vicariously liable for contractor will not be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of that person. Exceptions exist, the tortious acts of that person. Exceptions exist, but before dealing with those exceptions, let us but before dealing with those exceptions, let us first distinguish between an employee and an first distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor. independent contractor.

An employee is typically viewed as someone under An employee is typically viewed as someone under the control of the person who hired him; an the control of the person who hired him; an independent contractor, although hired to independent contractor, although hired to produce produce certain results, is considered her own certain results, is considered her own boss. An independent contractor works at her own boss. An independent contractor works at her own pace, in her own way, under her own supervision.pace, in her own way, under her own supervision.

Parental LiabilityParental Liability Some states, in an effort to curb juvenile Some states, in an effort to curb juvenile

delinquency, have enacted statutes that hold delinquency, have enacted statutes that hold parents liable for the tortious acts of their parents liable for the tortious acts of their children. These torts can involve either personal children. These torts can involve either personal injury or property damage, but they must be injury or property damage, but they must be intentional torts. Most such statutes have intentional torts. Most such statutes have damage ceilings, which can be as high as several damage ceilings, which can be as high as several thousand dollars. A Georgia statute that provided thousand dollars. A Georgia statute that provided no such ceiling was held void under the due-no such ceiling was held void under the due-process clause (process clause (Corley v. Lewless, 182 S.E.2d Corley v. Lewless, 182 S.E.2d 766 766 [Ga. 1971]).[Ga. 1971]).

Since the Columbine Since the Columbine incident….incident….

In the aftermath of Columbine many states have reexamined their In the aftermath of Columbine many states have reexamined their parental-responsibility laws. New York passed a statute allowing parental-responsibility laws. New York passed a statute allowing schools and local governments to recover thousands of dollars from schools and local governments to recover thousands of dollars from students who make phony bomb threats. Many states have students who make phony bomb threats. Many states have considered statutes that would hold parents criminally responsible considered statutes that would hold parents criminally responsible if their children commit crimes using firearms.if their children commit crimes using firearms.

A parent may also be vicariously liable if she encourages the A parent may also be vicariously liable if she encourages the commission of a tortious act or accepts benefits from it. Similarly, a commission of a tortious act or accepts benefits from it. Similarly, a parent who negligently entrusts a dangerous object to a child or parent who negligently entrusts a dangerous object to a child or who fails to protect others from dangerous tendencies of the child who fails to protect others from dangerous tendencies of the child will be held liable. In one case the parents of a fifteen-year-old boy will be held liable. In one case the parents of a fifteen-year-old boy were held liable for the injuries suffered by a five-year-old girl he were held liable for the injuries suffered by a five-year-old girl he molested while babysitting. The boy’s parents were aware of his molested while babysitting. The boy’s parents were aware of his history of molestation of young girls (history of molestation of young girls (Schurk v. Christensen, 497 Schurk v. Christensen, 497 P.2d 937 [Wash. 1972]).P.2d 937 [Wash. 1972]).