Yes. It really is Week #7 already!! TORT LAW **Starring: Sonya, Sandra, Charles B., Cheryl B., Jolie, Rachel, Tashara, Dawn, Susan, Andrea, Cynthia, Felicia, Susan, Megan, Vic, Tammy, Cheryl K., Amanda, Erin, Laurie, David, Wanda, Melissa, Charles W., Tamica, and Delendell!! Guest starring: Adam

What you need to do this week. This unit will address the question "Whom can you sue?" by focusing on vicarious liability and joint liability, two of the most important concepts in tort law. This unit will address the question "Whom can you sue?" by focusing on vicarious liability and joint liability, two of the most important concepts in tort law. There are 2 discussion questions There are 2 discussion questions We also have our next assignment this week. We also have our next assignment this week.

Assignment 3: Draft This is a ROUGH DRAFT of the final paper…. This is a ROUGH DRAFT of the final paper…. Your ultimate assigment (Research Assignment 4) will be to draft a memorandum of law to your supervising attorney. It will be 8-10 pages in length. In that memo, you will have conducted research and evaluated the case law to determine which causes of action, if any, can be filed against the Church. This draft only needs to be about 4 pages long. Your ultimate assigment (Research Assignment 4) will be to draft a memorandum of law to your supervising attorney. It will be 8-10 pages in length. In that memo, you will have conducted research and evaluated the case law to determine which causes of action, if any, can be filed against the Church. This draft only needs to be about 4 pages long.

My advice is…. Remember what you did for the first two assignments…. Remember what you did for the first two assignments…. In the first & second research assignments you came up with all of the potential causes of action (i.e. false imprisonment, etc.) and their elements. In the first & second research assignments you came up with all of the potential causes of action (i.e. false imprisonment, etc.) and their elements. In this assignment – you need to kick it up a notch AND now apply the facts in the case to the law (i.e. false imprisonment) and analyze whether or not false imprisonment or battery occurred. In this assignment – you need to kick it up a notch AND now apply the facts in the case to the law (i.e. false imprisonment) and analyze whether or not false imprisonment or battery occurred. Remember that this is TORTS class – so stick to the INTENTIONAL TORTS and NEGLIGENCE when discussing the different causes of action. Remember that this is TORTS class – so stick to the INTENTIONAL TORTS and NEGLIGENCE when discussing the different causes of action.

Here is a quick review of Intentional Torts: There are 7 main ones: There are 7 main ones: 1) Assault 1) Assault 2)Battery 2)Battery 3) False Imprisonment 3) False Imprisonment 4) Trespass to Property (land) 4) Trespass to Property (land) 5) Trespass to Chattels (personal property) 5) Trespass to Chattels (personal property) 6) Conversion 6) Conversion 7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (was the behavior – extreme and outrageous?) 7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (was the behavior – extreme and outrageous?)

AND also a quick review of the elements of Negligence: 1) DUTY 1) DUTY 2) BREACH OF THE DUTY 2) BREACH OF THE DUTY 3) CAUSATION: Was there actual AND proximate cause 3) CAUSATION: Was there actual AND proximate cause 4) Were there any DAMAGES suffered? 4) Were there any DAMAGES suffered?

Let’s start with Vicarious Liability: Who know’s what Vicarious Liability is? Who know’s what Vicarious Liability is? Take a stab at it! Take a stab at it!

Vicarious Liability Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, an individual is held liable for the tortious acts of another. These acts are imputed to him because of the special relationship he holds to the tortfeasor. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, an individual is held liable for the tortious acts of another. These acts are imputed to him because of the special relationship he holds to the tortfeasor. The most common relationship is the one between employer and employee, in which the employer is held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of her employee. The most common relationship is the one between employer and employee, in which the employer is held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of her employee.

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP An employer is vicariously liable for the acts of an employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which translates as “let the person higher up answer.” An employer is vicariously liable for the acts of an employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which translates as “let the person higher up answer.” The rationale most commonly used to justify this doctrine is that employers should consider the expense of reimbursing those injured by their employees as part of the cost of doing business. As a practical matter, keep in mind that typically the employee is judgment-proof, whereas the employer is the proverbial “deep pocket.” The rationale most commonly used to justify this doctrine is that employers should consider the expense of reimbursing those injured by their employees as part of the cost of doing business. As a practical matter, keep in mind that typically the employee is judgment-proof, whereas the employer is the proverbial “deep pocket.”

This is an IMPORTANT point to remember!! For the doctrine to be applicable the employee must be acting “within the scope and furtherance of his employment.” For the doctrine to be applicable the employee must be acting “within the scope and furtherance of his employment.”

Intentional Torts and Vicarious Liability What if an employee intentionally injures another? What if an employee intentionally injures another? The employer will still be liable as long as the tort is reasonably connected to the employee’s job. A company may be liable, for example, for false imprisonment committed by an overzealous security guard who unreasonably detains a customer she suspects of shoplifting or for assault and battery committed by an employee who resorts to Rambo-style techniques in trying to collect a debt for the company. The employer will still be liable as long as the tort is reasonably connected to the employee’s job. A company may be liable, for example, for false imprisonment committed by an overzealous security guard who unreasonably detains a customer she suspects of shoplifting or for assault and battery committed by an employee who resorts to Rambo-style techniques in trying to collect a debt for the company. The employer will not be liable if the employee’s acts are driven by some purely personal motive, such as vengeance. The employer will not be liable if the employee’s acts are driven by some purely personal motive, such as vengeance.

Frolics and Detours An employer is not vicariously liable when an employee goes on a “frolic” or “detour” of his own. Suppose an employee of a pizza parlor, having completed his deliveries, drives twenty miles out of his way for a little rendezvous with his girlfriend. His twenty-mile side trip would likely be considered a “frolic” or “detour” and, under the traditional view, his employer would not be vicariously liable for any acts of negligence he might commit. However, if the employee became involved in an accident while en route back to the pizza parlor, the employer would once again become vicariously liable because once he got back on track, the employee would be acting within the scope of his employment. An employer is not vicariously liable when an employee goes on a “frolic” or “detour” of his own. Suppose an employee of a pizza parlor, having completed his deliveries, drives twenty miles out of his way for a little rendezvous with his girlfriend. His twenty-mile side trip would likely be considered a “frolic” or “detour” and, under the traditional view, his employer would not be vicariously liable for any acts of negligence he might commit. However, if the employee became involved in an accident while en route back to the pizza parlor, the employer would once again become vicariously liable because once he got back on track, the employee would be acting within the scope of his employment.

Under the more modern view…. Under the more modern view, the employee would be seen as acting within the scope of her employment if her deviation from her business purpose was “reasonably foreseeable.” Under this Under the more modern view, the employee would be seen as acting within the scope of her employment if her deviation from her business purpose was “reasonably foreseeable.” Under this approach an employee whose deviation is slight in terms of time and distance is considered acting within the scope of her employment even when she is on a personal errand. The reasoning underlying this approach is that employers should be liable for those things that can generally be anticipated as one of the risks of doing business.

Is the employer liable even if she explicitly forbids the employee to engage in certain acts and the employee does so anyway? Yes, as long as the acts are done within the scope and furtherance of employment. Suppose a store expressly forbids its employees from using physical force to detain someon suspected of shoplifting. The store will nevertheless be vicariously liable for the negligence of it employees who countermand those orders, and wrestle to the ground and hogtie an uncooperative customer whom they suspect of shoplifting. Yes, as long as the acts are done within the scope and furtherance of employment. Suppose a store expressly forbids its employees from using physical force to detain someon suspected of shoplifting. The store will nevertheless be vicariously liable for the negligence of it employees who countermand those orders, and wrestle to the ground and hogtie an uncooperative customer whom they suspect of shoplifting.

Here is the first discussion board question this week: Kent owns a flower shop. He has one driver for the flower shop, Mike. Kent suspects that Mike runs some personal errands during the day; however, Mike is so efficient that Kent does not mind. Mike gets into an accident. The driver of the car sues Kent and the flower shop on the theory of respondeat superior. Kent owns a flower shop. He has one driver for the flower shop, Mike. Kent suspects that Mike runs some personal errands during the day; however, Mike is so efficient that Kent does not mind. Mike gets into an accident. The driver of the car sues Kent and the flower shop on the theory of respondeat superior. What information would you need to collect from Kent and Mike to determine if he will be held ultimately liable for the injuries? You must list and explain all of the elements and how they will determine if Kent will be liable or not. What information would you need to collect from Kent and Mike to determine if he will be held ultimately liable for the injuries? You must list and explain all of the elements and how they will determine if Kent will be liable or not.

EMPLOYERS & INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS Generally, one who hires an independent contractor will not be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of that person. Exceptions exist, but before dealing with those exceptions, let us first distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor. Generally, one who hires an independent contractor will not be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of that person. Exceptions exist, but before dealing with those exceptions, let us first distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor. An employee is typically viewed as someone under the control of the person who hired him; an independent contractor, although hired to produce certain results, is considered her own boss. An independent contractor works at her own pace, in her own way, under her own supervision. An employee is typically viewed as someone under the control of the person who hired him; an independent contractor, although hired to produce certain results, is considered her own boss. An independent contractor works at her own pace, in her own way, under her own supervision.

Parental Liability Some states, in an effort to curb juvenile delinquency, have enacted statutes that hold parents liable for the tortious acts of their children. These torts can involve either personal injury or property damage, but they must be intentional torts. Most such statutes have damage ceilings, which can be as high as several thousand dollars. A Georgia statute that provided no such ceiling was held void under the due-process clause (Corley v. Lewless, 182 S.E.2d 766 [Ga. 1971]). Some states, in an effort to curb juvenile delinquency, have enacted statutes that hold parents liable for the tortious acts of their children. These torts can involve either personal injury or property damage, but they must be intentional torts. Most such statutes have damage ceilings, which can be as high as several thousand dollars. A Georgia statute that provided no such ceiling was held void under the due-process clause (Corley v. Lewless, 182 S.E.2d 766 [Ga. 1971]).

Since the Columbine incident…. In the aftermath of Columbine many states have reexamined their parental- responsibility laws. New York passed a statute allowing schools and local governments to recover thousands of dollars from students who make phony bomb threats. Many states have considered statutes that would hold parents criminally responsible if their children commit crimes using firearms. In the aftermath of Columbine many states have reexamined their parental- responsibility laws. New York passed a statute allowing schools and local governments to recover thousands of dollars from students who make phony bomb threats. Many states have considered statutes that would hold parents criminally responsible if their children commit crimes using firearms. A parent may also be vicariously liable if she encourages the commission of a tortious act or accepts benefits from it. Similarly, a parent who negligently entrusts a dangerous object to a child or who fails to protect others from dangerous tendencies of the child will be held liable. In one case the parents of a fifteen-year-old boy were held liable for the injuries suffered by a five- year-old girl he molested while babysitting. The boy’s parents were aware of his history of molestation of young girls (Schurk v. Christensen, 497 P.2d 937 [Wash. 1972]). A parent may also be vicariously liable if she encourages the commission of a tortious act or accepts benefits from it. Similarly, a parent who negligently entrusts a dangerous object to a child or who fails to protect others from dangerous tendencies of the child will be held liable. In one case the parents of a fifteen-year-old boy were held liable for the injuries suffered by a five- year-old girl he molested while babysitting. The boy’s parents were aware of his history of molestation of young girls (Schurk v. Christensen, 497 P.2d 937 [Wash. 1972]).