Assault and Domestic Violence Attorney

In the above-mentioned case, the client is suing the counseling agency because he was physically assaulted by one of its employees. Wilbur, the plaintiff is suing XYZ counseling Agency (the defendant) because an employee called Chuck physically assaulted him during an anger management session; he holds the company responsible for the employee’s action.
As stated in the case, Chuck assaulted Wilbur during a counseling session, such an act is described as “intentional tort of battery” in our textbook. By making a decision to hire Chuck despite his bad work record (he was fired from his previous job for physically assaulting a client) the counseling company took up responsibility for his actions, thus providing the plaintiff enough reason to sue the defendant of the grounds of “tort of negligence”. It is essential to keep in mind that the company is responsible for its employee’s actions, which is why Wilbur is suing the counseling agency and the individual employee. If the plaintiff won the case the counseling company and not the individual employee (Chuck) would be held responsible for the consequences. In addition, the plaintiff can point out the negligence in the hiring process of the company, where despite knowing that Chuck had faced charges of assault in the past, the counseling company chose to overlook... [continues]
XYZ Counseling Agency, a Limited Liability Company, hired Chuck as an anger management counselor. Two months ago during a counseling session with a client named Wilbur, Chuck became very angry at Wilbur's failure to improve and beat up Wilbur. A week earlier, XYZ Counseling had counseled Chuck about an incident in which he grabbed a client by the arm and shook him. XYZ Counseling has a specific policy against violence and has disciplined employees who violate it, but it has never terminated anyone for such conduct. Five years ago, Chuck was fired by another counseling firm after he hit a client. Wilbur has sued XYZ Counseling AgencyXYZ