Ba-Tort Liability B/t P And 3P

Front 1

Vicarious Liability

Back 1

-Master is liable to 3P for torts comitted by servant acting within scope of employment
-liability exists without personal fault
-when apparent authority Master/P may be liable for Servant's acts outside scope of employment

basically M is liable for torts of S is
(1) acts fall within scope of authority
OR
(2) there is express or apparent authority
-master responsible for intentional acts of servant but not criminal acts
if A is not servant, P usually not liable for tort under respondeat superior

Front 2

VL--how to deetermine

Back 2

1. Is A an employee or IC

Front 3

VL--A is IC

Back 3

-P not usually liable unless he has authority e.g. apparent authority that he is a servant to 3P
-P is liable if:
-negligent hiring
-employer's fault contributes or causes the injury i.e. wrong instructions
-the duty is nondelegable
-work is highly/inherently dangerous

factors
-employer does not control how work is performed
-employer is not in business
-type of work is not part of employer's regular biz
-employer does not supervise work
-employer does not supply tools and place of work
-short length of employment
-compensated by job/work to be performed
-highly skilled

Front 4

VL-A is an employee

Back 4

P liable if acting within the scope of employment

factors
-employer controls how work is performed
-employer is in same biz
-Employee is engaged in Employer's occupation or business
-employer supervises the work
-E supplies tools/work place
-long length of employment
-compensated by time
-average skill

Front 5

VL--when is an employee acting within scope of employment

Back 5

factors:
1. Time
2. Area
3. Purpose
4. Frolic and Detour
-S deviated from authorized activity for his own purpose
-not a frolic and detour if on the way toward completing M/P's objective, even if S/A intends to go beyond it to effect his own
-use Dominant Purpose Test--examine sevant's intent at time tort happens
5. Re-entry
-is S was on a frolic and detour and then headed back toward master's route, then it is jury question as to whether servant acted within scope of employment

Front 6

VL--scope of employment said another way

Back 6

was the employee where he was supposed to be, doing what he was supposed to be doing, with the purposes of the employer in mind?

Front 7

VL--lawsuit procedure

Back 7

3P can join M and S in one action or sue them separately

but can only recover once--joint and several liability
-a suit against one does not bar filing suit against the other
if court finds either M or S not guilty then other party cannot be found liable under principle of res judicata

Front 8

VL--if A is not a servant

Back 8

P not liable
examples:
-mistaken action
-defamation
-misrepresentation

Front 9

VL--dual masters

Back 9

VL may apply to both depending on facts
-VL only applies if servant intended to serve both Ms when tortious conduct occured
-if S is "borrowed",