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 are expressly told that C was talking to Jimmy about business so Soft will be liable.
"The Court in Bricker v. Snook, (1989) Ohio App. LEXIS 1076 stated “It is the universally accepted rule that an employer is liable for personal injuries or the death of another person, or injury to another person's property caused by his employee's negligence, misconduct, misfeasance, or wrongful, improper, or unlawful acts, when done within the scope of his authority, whether the authority is express or implied, or inferred from the general course of business
“An employer may be liable for the intentional torts of its employees as the law now imposes liability whether the employee’s purpose, however misguided, is wholly or in part to further the master’s business.” State v Hoshijo ex rel. White, 102 Hawaii 307, 318, FN 27 (Hawaii, 2003). Employer/employee relationships are the most common area wherein respondent superior is applied, but often the doctrine is used in the agency relationship. In this, the principal becomes liable for the actions of the agent, even if the principal did not directly commit the act. There are three considerations generally:
1. Was the act committed within the time and...