Agency and Respondeat Superior ?Mutiple choice) 1?Under what theory of liability
ID: 421711 • Letter: A
Question
Agency and Respondeat Superior ?Mutiple choice)
1?Under what theory of liability would Mr. Melnick use to try to claim damages for his dog?
- Respondeat superior makes principals liable for the criminal acts of their employees acting within the scope of employment.
- Respondeat superior makes principals liable for the torts of their agents acting within the scope of employment.
- Strict liability makes principals liable for all acts of their agents.
- Respondeat superior makes principals liable for torts of their agents at all times.
2) If one of Oscar's trucks did run over Mr. Melnick's dog would Oscar (or his store) be liable for the damages?
-All of these.
-Yes, if the driver was on a frolic from his normal employment duties.
-Yes, if the driver was within the scope of employment when he ran over the dog.
-No, if the employee was on a detour of his own from his normal employment duties.
3)Assume that a court decided that the driver was on a detour from his regular duties and that the driver was negligent when he ran over Mr. Melnick's dog. Who would be liable to Melnick?
-Oscar (or his store) only.
-The driver only.
-Both Oscar (or his store) and the driver.
-Neither Oscar (or his store) nor the driver.
4)Would Oscar be liable for Melnick's damages since he did not specifically tell Vinny that he could drive the truck to the hospital?
-Yes, because of the emergency Vinny would have implied authority to drive the truck to the hospital.
-No, Vinny did not have express authority to drive the truck in the area.
-Yes, since it happened in Oscar's truck.
-No, because it was an emergency.
5)Assume that Oscar says he would pay for Melnick's dog, even if it was not legally required to do so, because he thinks the driver did the right thing by driving the van to the hospital. Oscar is now liable because of:
-express authority.
-implied ratification.
-implied authority.
-ratification.
Explanation / Answer
1) Under what theory of liability would Mr. Melnick use to try to claim damages for his dog?
Answer: (B) Respondeat superior makes principals liable for the torts of their agents acting within the scope of employment.
2) If one of Oscar's trucks did run over Mr. Melnick's dog would Oscar (or his store) be liable for the damages?
Answer: (C) Yes, if the driver was within the scope of employment when he ran over the dog.
3) Assume that a court decided that the driver was on a detour from his regular duties and that the driver was negligent when he ran over Mr. Melnick's dog. Who would be liable to Melnick?
Answer: (C) Both Oscar (or his store) and the driver.
4) Would Oscar be liable for Melnick's damages since he did not specifically tell Vinny that he could drive the truck to the hospital?
Answer: (A) Yes, because of the emergency Vinny would have implied authority to drive the truck to the hospital.
5) Assume that Oscar says he would pay for Melnick's dog, even if it was not legally required to do so, because he thinks the driver did the right thing by driving the van to the hospital. Oscar is now liable because of:
Answer: (D) Ratification.