MGMT 520 week 5 DQ #1 Mapp v. Gimbels (graded)
MGMT 520 week 5 DQ #1
Mapp v. Gimbels (graded)
Please read problem 3 at the end of Chapter 17 regarding the lawsuit by alleged thief Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store. Under what theory might Mr. Mapp argue that Gimbels is liable for the assault committed against Mapp by Mr. DiDomenico, an employee of J.C. Penney's? Would Mr. Mapp be successful under the theory you chose? Why or why not?
It might be argued that there was no agreement between Gimbels and DiDomenico. It also might be argued that DiDomenico would be acting on behalf of Gimbels and that he had the approval of Gimbels to oversee and direct the manner in which his surveillance was to be conducted. The case states that DiDomenico had followed Mapp into Gimbels when he was actually working for J.C. Penneys. It also does not state that he was invited by Gimbels to assist in the pursuit. Only that he remained there without invitation and at his own instance. His assistance was neither requested nor sought by Gimbels or by anyone on its behalf. So it appears that DiDomenico was acting on his own behalf and not as an agent or employee of Gimbels when he chased Mapp through the parking area and apprehended him in the lower parking area. There is no evidence for the belief that there was an agreement of between Gimbels and J.C. Penney for assistance. Nor was there any evidence that the security service of one store was authorized to provide security service to the other store when apprehending shoplifters.
Also, it can be argued that there is no ability to control the conduct of DiDomenico's work since he is not an employee of Gimbels. Therefore Gimbels cannot be liable for the injuries that DiDomenico inflicted upon Mapp during the chase and eventual apprehension of the thief. I believe the court would have to state that Gimbels is not
Mapp v. Gimbels (graded)
Please read problem 3 at the end of Chapter 17 regarding the lawsuit by alleged thief Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store. Under what theory might Mr. Mapp argue that Gimbels is liable for the assault committed against Mapp by Mr. DiDomenico, an employee of J.C. Penney's? Would Mr. Mapp be successful under the theory you chose? Why or why not?
It might be argued that there was no agreement between Gimbels and DiDomenico. It also might be argued that DiDomenico would be acting on behalf of Gimbels and that he had the approval of Gimbels to oversee and direct the manner in which his surveillance was to be conducted. The case states that DiDomenico had followed Mapp into Gimbels when he was actually working for J.C. Penneys. It also does not state that he was invited by Gimbels to assist in the pursuit. Only that he remained there without invitation and at his own instance. His assistance was neither requested nor sought by Gimbels or by anyone on its behalf. So it appears that DiDomenico was acting on his own behalf and not as an agent or employee of Gimbels when he chased Mapp through the parking area and apprehended him in the lower parking area. There is no evidence for the belief that there was an agreement of between Gimbels and J.C. Penney for assistance. Nor was there any evidence that the security service of one store was authorized to provide security service to the other store when apprehending shoplifters.
Also, it can be argued that there is no ability to control the conduct of DiDomenico's work since he is not an employee of Gimbels. Therefore Gimbels cannot be liable for the injuries that DiDomenico inflicted upon Mapp during the chase and eventual apprehension of the thief. I believe the court would have to state that Gimbels is not