On January 17, Brad, a delivery driver (employee) was driving his company's delivery van while on the way to deliver a package to the next customer when he crashed into a pedestrian in a walkway. The pedestrian suffered minor injuries and then sued both Brad and his company. The company may be held legally liable for the actions of Brad ________________.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: On January 17, Brad, a delivery driver (employee) was driving his company's delivery van while on the way to deliver a package to the next customer when he crashed into a pedestrian in a walkway. The pedestrian sued both Brad and his company. The company may be held legally liable for the actions of Brad ____________.

Option 1: 'under no circumstances because Brad was driving the van when he injured the pedestrian.' This claim ignores the principle that liability can extend to an employer for actions of its employees when those actions occur within the scope of employment. Merely noting the driver’s activity (driving the van) does not make the statement true; context matters, and driving to perform job duties is typically within scope.

Option 2: 'under no circumstances because Brad was not the agent of his company.' The premise is incorrect because Brad, as a delivery driver, was an agent or employee of the company. Saying he is not an agent contradicts basic employer-employee relationships, and thus eliminates potential liability in a mistaken premise.

Option 3: 'under contract law.' While contracts can govern many business relationships, this scenario involves tort liability—specifically, wrongful conduct causing injury. The standard basis for employer liability in such cases is not contract law but tort law, making this option inaccurate as the primary theory here.

Option 4: 'under the legal theory of Respondeat Superior.' This is the correct concept: under respondeat superior, an employer can be held liable for the torts committed by an employee if the acts occur within the time and scope of employment and in furtherance of corporate duties. Since Brad was performing his job duties (delivery) in the vehicle at the time of the collision, the company can be vicariously liable for his actions.

Additional clarification across options: The crux is whether the employee acted within the scope of employment. In most delivery scenarios, driving to fulfill a task for the employer is within scope, making the employer potentially liable. The other options misstate the relationship (Option 2), misclassify the nature of the claim (Option 3), or rely on an overgeneralized or incorrect premise (Option 1).

In summary, Option 4 aligns with the established doctrine of vicarious liability for employees acting within the course and scope of their employment, which is why the company may be held liable for Brad’s actions.

ACCT:4300:0001 Fall25 Examination #3 (final exam) - Accounting Ethics and Law- Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Question at position 7 Who may be legally liable for an act of sexual harassment against an intern by an employee of a company? Consider the following factors 1. The employer of the harasser2. The harasser (the employee who harassed the intern) 1 & 21 only2 only

For an employer to be liable for the torts of an employee, the employer must be negligent in hiring, training, or supervising the employee.

Under the legal theory of respondeat superior, which party is liable for damages to a patient resulting from breach of confidence?

Question at position 29 As long as a buyer is acting in accordance with their employer’s direction, they can never have personal liability for their actions.TrueFalse

Question at position 5 As long as a buyer is acting in accordance with their employer’s direction, they can never have personal liability for their actions.TrueFalse

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单