Preview

Walmart Vs Buy-Mart

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
223 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Walmart Vs Buy-Mart
1. Under the doctrine Respondeat Superior, Buy-Mart may be held liable for the tort committed in this situation. The doctrine states that duty of the employer or organization are responsible for what the employees (agents) do during employment. In this cause, Buy-Mart is responsible to third parties (the customer) who are injured by the employee's actions.

2. A key factor in determining whether Buy-Mart is liable under Respondeat Superior is when an employer is liable for the bad actions or failure to complete their duty by the employees or agents in this case during employment.

3. Either way you look at it, Buy-Mart would still be liable for Watt's actions whether he committed a tort of negligence or intentional tort according to the doctrine
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    What Is John Stokely's Vicarious Liability Of AAA Auto Dealers?
    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages

    What Is John Stokely's Vicarious Liability Of AAA Auto Dealers?

    John Stokely is responsible for injuring the motorcyclist while driving a vehicle from AAA Auto Dealers. Employers are vicariously liable under the respondeat superior doctrine. In the respondeat superior doctrine, in most cases, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the scope of employment. John Stokely used the company’s vehicle for personal reasons, regardless of what they were, and negligently collided into and injured someone on a motorcycle. John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers. Not only did he use the company’s car for personal reasons, his boss accompanied him on the visit to a family member’s house for dinner. The boss was excusing John Stokely’s behavior, allowing him to use company property for a different purpose other than what it was intended for. John Stokely’s boss accompanied him to his cousin’s house so it can be argued that John Stokely had “permission” to do what he wanted. The boss will be held responsible by the owner(s) of AAA Auto Dealers as well by allowing John Stokely to act outside of his job description.…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Samantha Smith PA201 Unit 4 Assignm
    • 530 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Samantha Smith PA201 Unit 4 Assignm

    Smith filed a complaint in trial court claiming that the store was negligent with maintaining safety of their store. She is seeking damages for injuries that she suffered from the fall. The store claims that Smith is just as much at fault as they are and that she was not paying attention to where she was walking because she was too distracted by her child.…

    • 530 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Samantha Smith And Suicide Case Study Essay
    • 1007 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Samantha Smith And Suicide Case Study Essay

    The question being presented today, is if both parties involved are equally responsible? Ms. Smith does in fact possibly hold some sort of comparative fault in this case. The grocery store did complete their scheduled aisle check just thirty minutes before Ms. Smith slipped. IND. Code Ann. §34-51-2-5 (WEST 1998) states that “in an action based on fault, any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for an injury attributable to the claimants contributory fault, but does not bar recovery”.…

    • 1007 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Lavr Johnson Wheaton Case
    • 324 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Lavr Johnson Wheaton Case

    Wheaton is liable for the manager’s injuries. Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior Liability. The principle in this case would be Wheaton and the agent would be LaVar Johnson. Under this doctrine an employer is liable for torts committed by agents, who are employees and who commit the tort while acting within the scope their employment, in addition, it also makes the principal liable both for an employees' negligence and for her intentional torts (pg. 944).…

    • 324 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Samantha Smith Case
    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Samantha Smith Case

    During an interview of the employees, many of them consented that there could possibly be a safer way to stock the shelves without putting the customers at risk. However, the jury decided that due to the customer’s failure to pay a certain amount of attention that he is partially at fault for his injuries.…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Week 5 Assignment
    • 656 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Week 5 Assignment

    Respondeat Superior says that, “an employer is liable for the tortious conduct of its employees or agents while they are acting within the scope of its authority.”(Cheeseman 475) Coleman went to the mall to buy a present for his wife, this was his own personal time, not Software Inc’s business. Therefore the jewelry store would not be able to recover judgement for the stolen ring from Software Inc.…

    • 656 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Eth 316 Week 9 Final Paper
    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Eth 316 Week 9 Final Paper

    I believe that the doctrine of respondent Superior does have some limitation, one of which is that even though it seeks to give liability to the party that would be more able to pay for loss for damage incurred. If for example the employee’s actions was unauthorized and outside the scope of his/her work the employer still must stand liability, situations like these happen often in the medical profession where patients are injured at the hands of unauthorized personnel and the employer becomes liable in a lawsuit. When the employee causes injury to a third party even it is unauthorized I believe that it is fair to have the employer stand liability however as I said before I do not agree with application of this doctrine in the cases where the action that injured the third party was reasonably taken upon the employee without authorization and outside their scope of their…

    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Powerful Essays

    Dilemma
    • 1666 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Dilemma

    Mr. Mapp, assuming Mr. DiDomenico as a generic store security guard, would use the theory of respondeat superior to claim that Gimbels is liable for his injuries sustained. This theory states the employers/principals are responsible for the conduct of their employees, assuming they are acting in the scope of their employment. However, Mr. Mapp’s approach to this theory would not be successful because Mr. DiDomenico is an employee of J.C. Penney’s and not an employee of Gimbels. Gimbels never hired DiDomenico so him acting upon himself to apprehend Mr. Mapp is not part of his scope of employment. The only way Gimbels would be responsible for Mr. Mapp’s injuries would be if DiDomenico were an actual employee for the company and, the attack would then be related to the duties of the employment and the assault would have then occurred within work-related limits of time and place.…

    • 1666 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Coleman and Jimmy
    • 827 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Coleman and Jimmy

    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.…

    • 827 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Business Law
    • 383 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Business Law

    There are certain types of cases that a director/officer can be liable. In this case, Greg Allen was found liable for damages just as his corporation was, however it was later vacated because the court determined that corporate officers are not generally liable for contractual obligations. Later, the court reversed the judgment that Greg Allen was not individually responsible. Liability of shareholders is determined by common law and generally, officers are not liable for torts committed by its agents. Agents that commit a tortious act (criminal, punishable, etc.), however, can be personally liable along with the principle. For this case, the agent, Greg Allen, was accused of negligence and the Estelle’s’ filed a suit against him as well as the corporation. According to Miller & Jentz, the corporation is liable for torts committed by its agents or officers within the scope of their employment. The liability would fall on the corporation because the agent, Greg, was directly working within the scope of his employment at the Estelle’s. The court ruled that the breach of contract fell on Greg Allen Construction and eventually retracted stating Greg Allen himself should have also been liable due to Greg participating in the negligent conduct. Since the duty of the agent was to work in an appropriate manner and…

    • 383 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Denver Department Stores
    • 3150 Words
    • 13 Pages

    Denver Department Stores

    The details within the case description give us the main points, but our remedy for the company’s problems rely on some facts that are derived intuitively. These facts are in regards to the organization’s structure, employees, and management. As for the structure of management, we assume that Denver Department Stores is governed by…

    • 3150 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Powerful Essays

    Walmart Business Ethics
    • 2244 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Walmart Business Ethics

    Wal-Mart is a superstore that has facilities all over the world. Wal-Mart is known as the friendly neighbor superstore. But until recently Wal-Mart has found it’s self not so friendly and is battling in unfair labor practices.…

    • 2244 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Industrial relations exam notes
    • 27230 Words
    • 109 Pages

    Industrial relations exam notes

    33 Rights and obligations of the employer in tort ................................................................................ 34 Vicarious liability ..........…

    • 27230 Words
    • 109 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Product Liability
    • 2251 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Product Liability

    Consumers use a variety of products on a daily basis to assist them in accomplishing a task or completing a project and they expect the product to be properly designed and safe to use. However, in the event that a product is defective and causes injury to the person using it, the manufacturer may be liable for the injury and have to compensate the injured person (s). Companies that manufacture products need to be sure they are doing all within their power to assemble products that are free of defects that could accidentally cause harm and cost the company. Product liability is the responsibility of manufacturers, distributors and sellers of products to the public, to deliver products free of defects which harm an individual or numerous persons and to make good on that responsibility if their products are defective (Product Liability, 2011). Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of the product, or someone to whom the product was loaned or given, are the subjects of products liability suits (Product Liability Law). Products liability claims can be based on negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty of fitness depending on the jurisdiction within which the claim is based. If a person(s) is injured while properly using a product that is defective, they have a right to file a claim against the company that would be titled a product liability lawsuit. However, in order to prevail on a product liability claim, the product complained of must be shown to be defective (Product Liability Law, 2011). A defective product causes injury or damage to a person or a person's property because of some defect in the product, its labeling or the manner in which the product was used. There are three types of product defects that incur liability in manufacturers and suppliers: design defects,…

    • 2251 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Powerful Essays

    Exemption Clause
    • 1906 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Exemption Clause

    “The company is not liable for any loss or damage whatsoever of or to the vehicle, its accessories or contents. Vehicles and goods are at owner’s risk.”…

    • 1906 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
    Read More

Related Topics