Julius was employed as a delivery driver for Penelope's Pizza, using his own car to deliver pizzas to customers. While driving to deliver a pizza one evening, Julius ran a stoplight and collided into the side of a car in the intersection driven by Herschel, injuring Herschel and Herschel's wife, who was sitting in the passenger seat, rendering her a paraplegic. Under these circumstances:

Question

Julius was employed as a delivery driver for Penelope's Pizza, using his own car to deliver pizzas to customers.  While driving to deliver a pizza one evening, Julius ran a stoplight and collided into the side of a car in the intersection driven by Herschel, injuring Herschel and Herschel's wife, who was sitting in the passenger seat, rendering her a paraplegic.  Under these circumstances:

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The scenario involves a delivery driver (Julius) using his own car to perform duties for his employer (Penelope's Pizza) and committing a negligent act (running a stoplight) that injures third parties (Herschel and his wife).
Option 1: 'Julius alone is liable to Herschel and his wife for negligence.' While Julius is definitely negligent for running the stoplight, the employer often bears liability for the acts of its employees when those acts occur within the scope of employment.
Option 2: 'Penelope's Pizza alone is liable to Herschel and his wife for negligence.' This would be incorrect because liability is not typically imposed on an employer for negligence in hiring or training when the tort was committed by an employee; the employer’s liability arises primarily through vicarious liability, not vicarious negligence.
Option 3: 'Penelope's Pizza is liable to Herschel and his wife only if Penelope's Pizza was negligent in hiring or training Julius.' While negligent hiring or training can establish a basis for employer liability in some contexts, the more general and precise theory here is vicarious liability for torts committed by a employee within the scope of employment, regardless of the employer’s own negligence in hiring or training.
Option 4: 'Penelope's Pizza is liable to Herschel and his wife under the doctrine of respondeat superior.' Respondeat superior holds an employer vicariously liable for the actions of employees performed within the scope of their employment, including when the employee is using their own vehicle to complete work tasks, provided the conduct occurred during the course of employment and within the scope of the assigned duties. This doctrine typically applies to torts arising from the employee’s negligent driving while performing job duties, making the employer liable to the injured parties despite the employee’s use of a personal vehicle.
Given these considerations, the analysis points toward the employer's vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, as the driving occurred in the course of delivering pizzas for the employer and the tort was committed during that activity.

BUSFIN 3500 SP2025 (4686) Chapter 6 Quiz

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

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