AGENCY: LIABILITY FOR TORTS AND
CRIMES
Chapter 19
T
STORY
: known service
A HE
carrier
for a well
delivery company was delivering
packages out in the West
Herndon area. He had a break
coming, so he decided to stop
into Starbucks and get a latte.
On his way out of the parking lot,
he failed to stop, and went
colliding into a car carrying a
women and two young children.
Although the children were
alright, the women driver claimed
to suffer neck injuries and her
car was badly damaged. She
sued the delivery company for a
total sum of $450,000 dollars
claiming bodily injury and
compensatory damages.
WHO’S LIABLE?
1. Why would the company be held
liable?
2. Would the carrier driver be responsible
and liable?
3. Since the carrier was driving, was he
still on his break or back on the job?
4. Since the carrier had the company shirt
and logo patch, does he represent the
company?
5. Should the carrier be responsible
solely for his actions?
6. Is the sum of $450,000 dollars, claiming
bodily injury and compensatory
damages, reasonable in this case?
SERVANT AND MASTER RELATIONSHIPS:
 Master
= Employer = Respondeat
Superior
 Respondeat Superior: Let the master
answer! The master is held
responsible for the servants conduct
 Servant = Employee
 Joint and Several = both master and
servant are held responsible and
liable for the servants conduct.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR JUSTIFICATIONS:
 The
master will make a better choice next
time in servants
 The master will be more careful in the
supervisory role.
 The liability of a servant is the cost of
conducting business.
 The master can purchase liability
insurance.
 The master can afford the costs.
DEFINITIONS:
Vicarious Liability: Legal responsibility for
the wrong committed by another person.
Strict Liability: Liability for an action
because it occurred and caused damage,
not because it is the fault of the person
who must pay.
“Deep Pockets”: Expression used to describe
those who have large sums of money.
THINGS TO REMEMBER:
 No
one factor controls the court decision.
 Every court case is different, but can be
based and judged on precedent setting
cases.
 Fact situations that seem very similar may
result in different decisions.
 The “Scope of Employment” issue will
always play a role in the decision of the
case.
SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT
Determining whether a servant is within the scope
of his or her employment.
THE STORY…
Jenny rides her bike to work from college every day. One
day after school, she couldn’t find a place to lock up her bike
because the bike rack was full. She decided to lock the bike
up to a city meter just outside the shop where she works.
Her employer saw Jenny’s bike there but didn’t mention to
her that it was against the cities ordinance to lock bikes up to
meters. A police officer saw the bike and decided to write the
ticket out to the shop owner,
rather than to Jenny. The officer
claimed that since the owner
knew it was against city
ordinance, and Jenny was
officially at work, then the shop
owner should pay for the ticket.
Was the officer right?
WHO PAYS THE TICKET?
Again,
was the officer right in this case?
Should the officer just asked Jenny to move
her bike and not written the ticket?
Should the shop owner have told Jenny to
move her bike?
Should Jenny have known not to lock her
bike up the the meter?
Should Jenny pay the ticket even though it
is made out to the shop owner?
Since Jenny was at work, does this fall
under “Scope of Employment” guidelines?
THE RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY INDICATES
THE FACTORS THAT SHOULD AFFECT THE
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A SERVANT IS WITHIN
THE SCOPE OF HIS OR HER EMPLOYMENT.
THE FACTORS INCLUDE:
Employee:
 Time and place of
occurrence.
 Failure to follow
directions.
 Failure to Act
 Acting on own accord
outside of the duties
and responsibilities of
the job.
Questions regarding
the Employer’s
Actions Include:
 Failure to Act
 Responsibility of the
servant to whom?
(What if there is
more than one boss?)
INDEMNIFICATION
Who Pays What?
HERE’S THE STORY…
Greg believed in the old fashioned way of giving
service at the gas station. He treated customers like
he wanted to be treated. He would wipe the windows
and check to make sure that customer’s tires were
always filled with the proper air pressure, and ready
for the road.
One day, as he was working on a
customer’s car, he noticed that the tires
seemed a bit low. He filled them up to the
regular level, not realizing that these tires
were Italian, and meant to have less
pressure in them then tires made in the
U.S. Shortly after the customer leaves, the
tires blow, causing the car to spin out of
control, killing the driver and the
passenger.
Who’s fault was this?
WHERE WAS THE WRONG COMMITTED?
 Was a crime committed?
 Should Greg have realized that these tires
were not made in the states? Should that
have been reason for him to question?
 Should the driver have said something to
Greg about his tires?
 Did Greg commit a crime unknowingly?
 Should the company Greg works for be
sued?
 Should the owner be sued for not training
Greg properly?
 Could this have been avoided?
ANALYSIS OF A SERVANT’S TORTS:
Was the person acting as a servant for the hiring
party?
 Did the servant commit a tort?
 Was the servant acting within the course and
scope of the job?
 Is the master entitled to indemnification from the
servant? Is the servant entitled to
indemnification from the master?

CRIMES AND INTENTIONAL TORTS:
Battery:
Unauthorized touching of another
person without legal justification or consent.
Conspiracy: A plan to engage in criminal
behavior involving two or more persons.
Solicitation: Influencing a person to engage
in criminal activity.
 Accessory to Crime: Assistance in a crime.
i.e., driving the “get-away” car.
Indemnification: The right to be repaid by a
servant, if the master has had to pay for his
servant’s crime.
INJURY ON THE JOB
Worker’s Compensation
HERE’S THE STORY…
Karen is a Personal Fitness
Trainer for one of the well known
fitness centers in town. She has
worked as a trainer for six years,
and is ready for a promotion.
Karen was recently assigned as a personal fitness trainer to
a new club member. Jim, Karen’s boss, felt that this
particular individual needed a male trainer, due to his size,
but for fear of being seen as a male chauvinist, he decided to
let Karen have him.
During a recent session, Karen was assisting the new
member, and while spotting him on the free-weights, she hurt
her back. She is now claiming that her boss should have
known better, and should have let one of the male fitness
trainers handle this new member. Does Karen have a case?
INSULT TO INJURY?
Should
Karen have said something from the
beginning regarding this new member?
Could Karen have felt that because she was up
for a promotion, her refusal to work with this
new member could have been detrimental?
Should Karen claim workers compensation?
Should Jim have given Karen the new member
or should he have given this new member to a
male trainer, despite how it looked?
Does Karen have a lawsuit against Jim?
Against the company?
INJURY ON THE JOB:
Under common law, if an employee is hurt at work, the
employer can utilize a number of defenses to avoid an
obligation to the employee:
These are two such defenses…
Negligence by the employee
 The employee’s assumption of the risk

WORKER’S COMPENSATION ELIGIBILITY:
 Must
prove that the injury occurred on the
job.
 The injury was caused in the course and
scope of the job.
Some statutes vary:
Some cover only major industrial
occupations.
Some exclude small shops w/few employees
Some exclude injuries caused intentionally
by the employer or other workers.
WILD/DANGEROUS ANIMALS AND
STRICT LIABILITY
VICIOUS ATTACK
One of the chimps shot in the attack.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/4258391/detail.
html
WILD/DANGEROUS ANIMALS AND STRICT
LIABILITY:
 The
owner of the animal has a duty of care to
anyone who might possibly come in contact
with the animal.
 The issue of “foreseeability” always plays a role
because there is always an issue of the animal
escaping. Therefore great care and caution is of
the utmost importance when handling the
animal as it interfaces with the public.
 All parties will be held liable despite the issue
of fault. Strict Liability is imposed.
 Warning signs, although helpful to those who
heed them, does not indemnify the
owner/handler from liability. (Joint and
Several)
DOG LAWS…..
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/
WEBSITES TO VIEW:
http://www.eff.org/pub/legal.com
http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/topics/workers_
Compensation.html.com
http://www.workcompsite.com
http://www.getareferral.com
http://www.opm.gov/oca/index.htm