Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast effective and ineffective safety leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
C. Thomas Orton’s conduct was not motivated by a purpose to serve his employer Thomas Orton’s actions were not motivated by a purpose to serve his employer, because backing over Martin did not serve a purpose to serve Kingsport. For Kingsport to be found liable for Thomas Orton’s actions under a theory of respondeat superior, his actions must be within the scope of his employment. Lev v. Beverly Enters.-Massachusetts, 457 Mass. 234, 238, 929 N.E.2d 303, 308 (2010) The rule for scope of employment, as stated in Lev v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, is “the 'conduct of an agent is within the scope of employment . . . and if it is motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer”. Id. at 238. The application of this rule can …show more content…
There is a small aside that needs to be brought up. It’s the fact of whether the garage was down before or after Martin was backed over. If it was found that the garage was not down yet, then there might be room to say that Thomas Orton was motivated by a purpose to serve his employer. The act of closing the garage was a response to Martin asking him to do so. Serving Martin would then be in the purview of serving Kingsport by performing duties for its clients. However, the more likely scenario that the garage was down and then Martin was backed into. With that in mind, backing into Martin would have not have served a purpose to Kingsport. This is given credence by the holdings in Worcester and Wang Laboratories. Even if the act of backing over Martin served to further the interests of Thomas Orton, those interests cannot be imported on to Kingsport. See Wang at 860. Also, the mere fact of a tortious action did not serve some purpose of Kingsport in of itself. Therefore, a judge should find that Thomas Orton’s action were not motivated by a purpose to serve his employer, …show more content…
While the relationship between Kingsport and Thomas Orton allows for a finding of respondeat superior, there is still the issue of scope of employment. A finding of scope of employment needs all three elements to be met. If the contract between Kingsport and Thomas Orton was discovered. Then the contends could be used to determine if the first element of, “being of the kind he was employed to perform”, could be met. Since that is not the case, the “going and coming” rule stands in the path of the first element being met. In its present state the third element, “motivated in part by a purpose to serve the employer” is not met, because performing a tortious action doesn’t serve a purpose to Kingsport. Ursula could introduce the question of whether the garage was down before or after Martin was backed over. This could allow a judge to find that the closing of the garage and use of the car were related enough. Therefore, the third element could be met. However, the second element makes all of the conjecture moot, because it is clearly not satisfied. He had already clocked out which was not in the authorized time and space limits of his employment. A judge should find there are no grounds to sue for respondeat superior, because the rule of scope of employment is not met. Ursula Kahn could always sue Thomas Orton individually for damages to
Type of Action: Suggs sued the estate of Norris over compensation for work to maintain decedents produce business. Defendant appealed the verdict in favor of plaintiff saying that their implied contracts were invalid.
The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises. The contract between the Alvarez Companies and Laduzinski carried the certain elements of a basic contract since there was an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. Perez offered plaintiff a position with the Alvarez companies, adding that the company was interested in obtaining plaintiff's contacts to have Before Laduzinski accepted the offer, asked for a two-year contract; However, Perez told plaintiff that his position would be focused on managing the Alvarez companies' workload, since the Alvarez companies has "a lot of clients and were busy. " Laduzinski accepted defendants' offer of at-will employment and quit his job at J.P. Morgan.
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
1. As the person, responsible for labor relations at Barrera Recycling Company, articulate a case to support your contention that there was just cause for the discharge of Erin McNamara.
...e actions of his company and the work they do in the line of duty. He has also employed a plumber without a license and may be found to be at fault for that plumber’s lack of a license. Although Mr. Chetum deserves to be brought to justice it seems that just about everyone who has a hand in the wrong can be held liable even for just following orders. Knarles would be wise to re-evaluate just who he puts his faith in before leaving the state and his business in the hands of a seventeen year old again.
Marty Anderson was an employee for Family Auto Repair (FAR) in Memphis and was transfer to their Jackson store, which was an hour and a half from his house. The company allow Marty to use a company vehicle to make his long commute, although he had his own vehicle. The terms of the explicit permission to use the vehicle were: to and from work, during lunch breaks, and to deliver and transfer items between FAR’s two facilities either before work or on his way home. Marty Anderson became a victim of the dilemma when he fell asleep at the wheel and injured a man, Steve Spritzer, in the company vehicle, at a time when he did not have explicit permission to be using the vehicle. Marty Anderson’s case can be argued in his favor or in FAR’s favor,
Keller claims to have unlocked doors, turning on lights, turning on the air compressor, reviewing employee schedules, and distributing fabric to other workstations. The district court did not hear from the plaintiff’s sister and co-worker. She stated that her sister didn’t work before the start of the shift. The district court found that Kellar’s pre-shift activities were non-compensable preliminary activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act of
Our client, the Union should not be responsible for the deaths and unruly behavior that belonged to the Pinkertons, as well as Henry Frick and Andrew Carnegie. These men were simply trying to attend work with a higher wage attached, as they had been working very hard long shifts, up to even twenty-four hour periods. Mr. Frick and Mr. Carnegie were not only working behind closed doors and hiding information from the public but were certainly living lavishly while these steelworkers were busting through every morning in order to gain what they needed to survive.
Thomas Orton was not within the time and space limits of his employment when he committed the tortious act against Martin Kahn. For Kingsport to be found liable for Thomas Orton’s actions under a theory of respondeat superior, his actions must be within the scope of his employment. Lev v. Beverly Enters.-Massachusetts, 457 Mass. 234, 238, 929 N.E.2d 303, 308 (2010) The rule for scope of employment, as stated in Lev v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, is “the 'conduct of an agent is within the scope of employment . . . if it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits”. Id. at 238. To meet the element, you must have findings of being within both
It is also possible that his original lawyer Samuel Mansfield Bay saw opportunities for a large reward due to his services to Scott, and initiated litigation. For example, some feel that Bay’s “object was to pave the way for a suit against the Emerson estate for the twelve years’ wages to which Scott would be entitled to,” (Herda, 29) should he win the case. This shows that, money could have been the driving force behind this case. This also shows that Scott may have been persuadable to another person’s reasons for pursuing the case. In addition, if this was true and Scott “had been illegally held as a slave since 1834.” (Herda, 30) This shows that, he would have the right to compensation, and therefore be entitled to what would be a lot of money. This also shows, how a mistake by a master in his traveling...
Lord Selborne in the case of Wilson v Northampton and Banbury Junction Rly Co[ (1874) 9 Ch App 279.] had outlined the purpose of specific performance. His Lordship stated that specific performance will only be granted when it can by that means do more perfect and complete justice. The purpose of granting specific performance is to ensure that justice can be uphold as perfect as it could be. However, the specific performance will only be granted when there is inadequate and insufficient remedy of damages to any case of breach of
Based on the information provided in chapter 7 and the information provided in the case, I would say that the owner of AAA Landscaping did not do a good job with handling the situation with Stu Murphy. In the case, it states that Stu had heard about AAA Landscaping through word of mouth advertising from some of his neighbors in his subdivision. He decided to hire AAA to landscape his yard and it was a $1200 service. The landscapers came out and redid the sod in the front yard and trimmed up bushes in Mr. Murphy's yard. The week after AAA did Stu's yard, they received a call from Stu and he let them know that there was unfinished work. Because AAA was tied up in other jobs the owner was not able to send anyone out until later on in the week. The next day Stu called again because the job was still not finished and the owner did not get around to calling Stu back. This went on for another week and finally the owner sent out someone to
Yinger, John M. Case: Alabama and the Mercedes-Benz Plant. Retrieved on December 5th, 2011. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/classes/PPA735/cases/taxincen.htm
Another thing about the King of Torts is that Clay was deemed the “King of Torts” by his legal counter parts. The mass tort lawyers had made big settlements over silly argument, but not as big as Clay’s. He was now an unofficial king of torts. The massive settlement lead to claying buying a two million dollar yacht and a forty-five million dollar jet called “The Gulfstream IV”. It is disturbing what happens when people get a large sum of money.
...wn because he was late due to his personal innuendo with someone and was speeding to cover up for the lost time and delay. Neither his employer nor his job required him to do so. So in short as far as the law is concerned there is one victim and two guilty parties and they are liable to put to sword and any number of claims can be mentioned as given earlier on. If the settlement can be made then well and good otherwise settling in court is a good option. As for Gabriel if he wants compensation, which is somewhat unlikely to get his best bet, would be going to court but even then legal costs involved might be higher. So what he can do is file the case along with Imogen in collaboration and put forth his claim and in unison his case would stand a better chance under the Tort Law. References Grolier’s Encyclopedia Britannica Encarta Manual on English Law of Tort, 2002