Class 27

Doctrine of vicarious liability

An employer can be responsible for injuries and damages done by employees. If an employee is negligent, he can always be sued directly. The theory of "deep pockets".

Respondiat superior.

There must be a master-servant(employee) relationship. There is no responsibility for an intependent contractor. If he is an IC, the employer is only responsible if there was negligence in the hiring of the IC. The employer should have investigated the IC before hiring him.

Who has the right to control the job that is being done? If the employer doesn't know much about the job, it indicates that he's in IC.
How is the individual being paid? If it's by the job, he's an IC.
Whose tools are being used. If it's the worker's tools, it indicates that he's an IC.

If he's an employee and he causes injury, there must be certain events:
The employee must be acting within the scope of the employment. Ask these questions: is he where he is supposed to be, when he's supposed to be there, doing what he's supposed to do? If so, employer can be held responsible. If not, he's on a "detour and frolic".

Ex: bread truck driver. If driver is on the route, employer can be held responsible. If he's visting his girlfriend in Morton Grove, the employer is not responsible. The driver is not where he's supposed to be.

If the bakery knows what he's doing and allows it, it becomes part of the job and it would be considered within the scope of the employment.

No vicarious liability allowed for unauthorized passengers in a vehicle.

Vicarious liability of an employer for the intention torts of an employee

The general rules is that the employer is not responsible for the intention torts of an employee. Ex: swimming teacher assaulting a student at the ymca. they're only responsible because they knew about a previous case of improper touching and they took no action.

3 exceptions:
1. when force is specifically authorized by the employer, if excessive or illegal. ex: someone shoplifting. if the employer tells an employee to stop the shoplifter, the employer is responsbile for any excessive force
2. if the employee is in a position that by its very nature generates friction. ex: bouncer at a bar. security guard.
3. employee who acts to protect the property of the employer, for the purpose of the employer. ex: pickle barrel case

So therefore, the employer is not responsible if the employee acts for a totally personal reason with no relationship to the job and the employee has no previous record of violence that the employer should have known about.

Best lines of the semester:
Q: "Is that papyrus?" A: "Is that an F?"
Q: "Where are the questions?" A: "I'd call you an idiot, but I want you to write a good evaluation."

Final Exam Review

Tuesday, 6pm. almost 2 hours.

8 questions. mUch on contract law. one on product liabliety

strict liabali
strict liability in tort and in contract

privity in contract
mcpherson buick case first eliminated requirement for contract with manufacturer

strict liab expanded
implied suitability. first in food and drink then in manuf goods.

if there's a defect in good, even if theres no neg, manufacturer is liable

breach of an express warranty
representation of fact ex: shatterproof glass.
even in advertising brochure

strict liab in tort
final expansion
if something is sold in an inherently dangerous condition (axle of a car), manuf is strict liab in tort. defect in good, design defect (lawnmower with no shutoff switch), failure to warn (diet food to baby, firing gun close to head)

contract law

when does an offer become an offer. what is an offer. when does it form a contract? what constitutes an acceptance? when does the acceptance form a contract. mailbox rule.

contracts for minors
generally voidable at the optoin of the minor. can get his money or property back, even if the goods are destroyed. unless it's a necessicity or a necessary (for their position in the society).

sufficiency of consideration vs adequacy of consideration

must be a legal detriment.

fraud/duress/undue influence

Contract fraud - intention misrepresentation of a material fact unknowingly made.
fraud can be a tort too. (know this!)

two torts:
1. intentional interference with a contractual relation
2. intentional interference with prospective advantage (predatory behavior)

ex: am baking company - cut out the driver

parol evidence rule - if you have a written contract, prior or contemporaneous oral statements can contradict the written agreement

contracts that must be in writing
land
promising to pay other ppls debts - who's obligation is it really? if it's to benefit the person who's making the promise, then it's his debt. ex: builder paying the debt of a subcontractor to a supplier so the sub can do the work.