Coleman and Jimmy

The suit filed against Software, Inc. by Jimmy's mother, John and the Bar should be dismissed on several grounds. First, Coleman was not acting within the course and scope of his employment by drinking and blowing a ball of fire. Secondly, an employer is not responsible for the criminal actions of its employee as that is an intervening cause that the employer cannot control. As for the wrongful termination claim of Coleman, it should not be sustainable because wrongful termination must be based on discrimination because of race, sex, age, disability or religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, if the employer terminated Coleman without an interview, he could sue for breach of contract (employment contract) or breach of the policies and procedures of the company. As for the jewelry store, it cannot hold Software, Inc. liable for Coleman's actions because they were also outside of the scope of employment and involved a criminal act for which it has not liability.

Read more: Coleman works for Software Inc., a Delaware based corporation - JustAnswer http://www.justanswer.com/business-law/6grrq-coleman-works-software-inc-delaware-based-corporation.html#ixzz28X1TCm7l

the jewelry store sued Software Inc. for the value of the ring

The jewelry store cannot recover from Software. Respondeat Superior is A legal doctrine, most commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency. Here C went to the mall to buy a present for his wife, not on the business of Soft.

Will Software Inc. be liable to the owners of Jimmy’s Bar? What about Jimmy’s mom? The same theory of Respondeat Superior would apply to both cases. Soft will argue that C was on a frolic and not on business. Jimmy's will argue that C was trying to impress John and Jimmy and as a traveling salesman meeting with clients is part of his job. We