Strict Liability

What are the three goals of respondeat superior?

1) The prevention of future injuries 2) The assurance of compensation to victims 3) The equitable spreading of losses caused by an enterprise

What are the three types of Injuries by Animals that create Common Law Strict Liability against the D?

1) Trespassing Animals - If the D's livestock leaves the D's property and caused damage to another property then the D is strictly liable 2) Abnormally dangerous Animals - If the D knew his animal had dangerous propensities that were not normal to it's animal type then the D is strictly liable. 3) Wild Animals - If the D owns wild animals that injure someone or damage property then the D will be held strictly liable.

How does Respondeat Superior apply to an employee with two employers? GR and Minority Rule.

1. GR: the first employer is vicariously liable, while the "barrowing" employer is not, unless evidence suggests barrower who has "control" of the servant 2. Some courts have held both employers are liable, if serving both at same time

Scope of employment rule? Traditional and Modern.

1. Traditional test: The employee's action must have been motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer 2. Modern Test: Whether the service itself, in which the tortious act is done, was within the ordinary course of such business

What is the going and coming rule?

An employee going to and from work is ordinarily considered outside the scope of employment so that the employer is not liable for his torts

What is the general rule towards the employee disregarding the employer's instructions or orders?

An employer's vicarious liability extends to the negligent, willful, malicious, or even criminal acts of its employees when such acts are committed within the scope of employment

Brown v. Kendall (unintended damage to P-dogs)

Changed US Tort Law to a fault-based system

Vicarious Liability and Respondeat Superior

Employers can be held liable for the torts of certain employees, provided those torts were committed within the scope of employment

What is the Frolic and Detour Rule? Is this an I4TJ or Judge?

If the departure is a detour, trivial departure, the employer may be liable If the departure is a frolic, a significant departure, then not liable. I4TJ.

What are the 3 exceptions to the Common Law Strict Liability Fault-Based System

Injuries caused by the following create strict liability against the D: 1) Injuries Caused by Animals 2) Abnormally Dangerous Activities 3) Products

What is the policy reasoning for holding an entire enterprise strictly liable?

Public Policy argues that if an enterprise is held strictly liable for that will in turn incentivize safer practices and reduce costs

What is the Respondeat Superior Rule regarding Gratuitous Service?

Relation. of a master and servant can be established without payment or promise. Relation. is not established unless servant submits to control of the employer

Riviello v. Waldron (Employee messing around with knife) Issue: Whether the act was within the scope of employment or not.

Rule: An employer is liable for the misconduct of his employee is the act was done in furtherance of the employer's work, no matter how irregular or with what disregard for instruction.

Fruit v. Schreiner (Convention, required employee to be there, crashed and hurt D) Issue: Whether the employer was liable for the tortious conduct because the employee was acting within the scope of his employment.

Rule: An employer is liable if, at the time of the injury, the employee was performing a service in the furtherance of his employer's business

What are the factors for consideration in determining whether a contractee maintains the right of control?

Rule: In determining whether a contractee maintains the right of control, factors to consider: 1. Extent of control by the agreement 2. Whether employed is engaged in a distinct occupation 3. Skill required whether the employer supplies the instrumentalities 4. Length of time 5. Method of payment - by time or job 6. Whether or not the work is part of the regular business 7. Creating the relation of master or servant

Montague v. AMN Healthcare, Inc. (Carbolic Poisoning) Issue: Whether an intentional tort is within the scope of Respondeat Superior

Rule: Intenitonal Torts are generally outside the scope of Respondeat Superior unless the D acted in furtherance of the employers interest

Pusey v. Bator (Security guard kills a dude without any instruction from the employer- nondelegable duty doctrine) Issue: Whether an employer is vicariously liable for injuries caused by the weapon of an armed security guard hired to protect the employer's property

Rule: Nondelegable duty doctrine applies, which imposes a duty on the employer for inherently dangerous work that creates a peculiar risk of harm unless special precautions are taken.

Mavrikidis v. Petullo (ran red light and spilled hot asphalt on car- Independent Issue: Whether D was considered an employee of the company or whether the worker acted as an independent contractor.

Rule: There are three exceptions that activate vicarious liability: 1) Where the contractee retains control of the manner and means of doing the work (Most important) 2) Where the contractee engages an incompetent contractor 3) Where the activity contracted for is inherently dangerous and creates a peculiar risk.

Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co. (P was hit by person driving car of the D business) Issue: Whether the trip incurred by the D involved an incidental benefit to the employer or no benefit at all. (Frolic and Detour)

Rule: Where an employer finds it desirable in the interests of his enterprise to pay for travel time and for travel expenses and to go beyond the normal labor market or to have located his enterprise at a remote from the labor market, he should be required to pay for the risk inherent to his decision.

Strict Liability

Strict Liability is liability without fault based only on cause.

Is there vicarious liability for a dangerous instrumentality?

The owner has no liability is he did not have control.

What are the requirements of the inherently dangerous work exception?

The work must involve: 1) an inherent risk of physical harm to others 2) A peculiar (different than the norm/special) risk of physical harm to others; and 3) a foreseeable risk of physical harm to others

Is scope of employment an issue for the jury?

Yes.

Edgewater Motels, Inc v. Gatzke (set motel on fire while working on something) Issue: Whether smoking while pursuing the employer's interest falls within the scope of employment.

Yes. Rule: Scope of employment is an I4TJ.