business law case study
Case Activity: In a case from 2010, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of “respondeat superior,” which is the legal principle under which an employer is liable for the negligence of its employees. In this case, the employee worked as a cashier, and she had “clocked-out” for the day. Prior to leaving the premises, she went to the bathroom in the store. She apparently entered the bathroom at a brisk pace, and somehow caused a patron in the bathroom to fall to the floor, sustaining injuries. The patron sued the employer (Food Lion), arguing that it was liable for the negligence of its employee (in the manner in which she entered the restroom). The employer argued that the employee had “clocked-out,” and thus was not in the course and scope of her employment. The patron responded that the incident occurred on the employer’s premises. The court agreed with the employer, and held that after the employee clocked-out, the employer did not retain control over the employee, and the employer was not liable (even though the incident occurred on the premises). Matthews v. Food Lion (2010).
Case Activity, Kase v. Ebert, 707 S.E. 2nd 456 (2011): Please consider each of the rejected tort claims in this case and indicate whether you agree or disagree and the reasons for your opinion.
http://law.justia.com/cases/
Case Activity, Freeman v. Dal Tile, 750 F. 3rd 413 (2014): Please consider the ruling in this case and whether you agree with the decision and the reasons for your opinion.
Solution Preview
Employer’s Liability
One of the most important responsibilities of organizations is to provide the employees with the appropriate working environment. In Freeman v. Dal Tile (2014), Freeman, the employee, complained that the management was not proactive enough in protecting him from the company’s clients. Despite his consistent effort to raise concerns over actions by the vendor, the action taken by the management was not consistent enough, which led to cases of continuous abuse from the company’s clients. Consequently, Freeman proceeded to resign and seek legal redress for the company’s adverse work environment and poor attention to employee needs.
(582 words)