Introduction:
This case involves the concept of agency and how business organizations might be held liable for the conduct of their employees and agents. This assignment focuses on the formation of an agency relationship and the elements of a tort involving an agent of a business organization. Although this case involved a fellow customer who was held not to be an agent, you might ponder what the result would have been if it had been a Chili's waiter who had pursued the nonpaying customers. An analysis of this case study will assess your understanding of the elements of agency as covered in this week's lesson.
Tasks:
Read the Bosse v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, d.b.a. Chili's Grill and Bar case on pages 461-462. In one to two pages, discuss whether the "unidentified patron" from Chili's was an agent of Chili's at the time of this accident. Answer the following in your paper:
- What creates an agency relationship?
- What is the doctrine of respondeat superior?
- Were the elements of an agency relationship met on the facts of the case? Why or why not?
- Use the DWC Virtual Library to formulate your response.
An Agent or an Employee?
Review the following scenario and then state whether you find an agency relationship or an employee relationship and why.
Robert is a delivery specialist. He started at a young age by delivering newspapers. Later, he delivered pizzas. He went on to deliver electronics for a local electronic superstore, which is what he does now.
An Agent or an Employee?
Review the following scenario and then state whether you find an agency relationship or an employee relationship and why.
Robert is a delivery specialist. He started at a young age by delivering newspapers. Later, he delivered pizzas. He went on to deliver electronics for a local electronic superstore, which is what he does now.
One day, Robert was asked to deliver a big-screen television to a customer who purchased it from the electronics store. Robert loaded the television onto his delivery truck and started on his way towards the customer's house. On the way, he stopped to get gas and a drink.
There were no gas stations on the way, so Robert drove to one near his house. He got the gas and then turned down his own street. He wanted to stop by his house and pick up lunch.
Robert's phone sent him a text signal indicating that he had a new text message. As he looked down to pick up his phone, his truck hit a parked car.
In this discussion, decide whether Robert was an agent or an employee at the time of the accident. What creates an agency relationship? Was that criterion met here?
What is a "frolic"? Was Robert on a frolic at the time of the accident? If Robert was on a frolic at the time of the accident, who is liable? Post your response and support your answer.