Dilemma
Question #1:
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?
Did the Gimbels security woman allow DiDomenico to assist in her store? Agency theory turns on a few items in a balancing act: (i) who pays Didomenico? (ii) was he allowed on the property to assist with the shoplifting?
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.
In the passage it clearly states that Ms. Federchok “[did not] request his assistance”. J.C.Penney pays Mr. DiDomenico, and he stepped over his boundary by purusing Mr. Mapp after he left J.C.Penney. Mr. DiDomenico should not have been allowed to assist with the shoplifting, because he was acting outside of his scope of employment and his assault, or any actions for that matter, would not be within work-related limits, especially because any subsequent events would take place on unauthorized premises
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?
Did the Gimbels security woman allow DiDomenico to assist in her store? Agency theory turns on a few items in a balancing act: (i) who pays Didomenico? (ii) was he allowed on the property to assist with the shoplifting?
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.
In the passage it clearly states that Ms. Federchok “[did not] request his assistance”. J.C.Penney pays Mr. DiDomenico, and he stepped over his boundary by purusing Mr. Mapp after he left J.C.Penney. Mr. DiDomenico should not have been allowed to assist with the shoplifting, because he was acting outside of his scope of employment and his assault, or any actions for that matter, would not be within work-related limits, especially because any subsequent events would take place on unauthorized premises