Dave is a driver for Empire Courier Service. Around the company, Dave is known as sort of a hothead. During his previous employment at another company, Dave had been involved in a workplace fistfight with a fellow employee, resulting in criminal charges.
QUESTION
Dave is a driver for Empire Courier Service. Around the company, Dave is known as sort of a hothead. During his previous employment at another company, Dave had been involved in a workplace fistfight with a fellow employee, resulting in criminal charges.
One day, between deliveries and in a company vehicle, Dave decides to get lunch. While leaving the parking lot at Big Burrito Bistro, the favorite lunch spot for most Empire Courier employees, Dave negligently causes a car accident with another vehicle, resulting in injuries to Victor, the driver of the other car. As Dave and Victor are waiting on the side of the road for the police to arrive, Victor comments to Dave, “Oh, you drive for Empire Courier Service. It doesn’t surprise me that Empire hires bad drivers because their service stinks, and their prices are too high!” Dave is so offended that Victor would insult his employer’s professional reputation that he punches Victor in the face, causing Victor to suffer even more injuries. Empire Courier Service does not, as a matter of policy, do criminal background checks on its employees.
Considering the legal principles discussed in Chapter 20, explain who is liable for Dave’s negligence for causing the car accident, and explain who is liable for Dave’s intentional tort for punching Victor. Provide your answers in a case analysis of a minimum of 500 words. Cite any direct quotes or paraphrased material from outside sources. Use APA format.
Resources
The following resource(s) may help you with this assignment.
ANSWER
Liability Analysis in the Case of Dave’s Negligence and Intentional Tort
Introduction
In this case analysis, we will examine the liability for Dave’s actions, both in causing the car accident due to negligence and for his intentional tort of punching Victor. We will consider the legal principles discussed in Chapter 20 to determine the parties responsible for the damages incurred. The analysis will focus on the concepts of negligence, vicarious liability, and intentional torts. Additionally, we will consider the employer’s liability for hiring and retaining an employee with a history of violence.
Liability for Dave’s Negligence in Causing the Car Accident
To establish liability for negligence, four elements must generally be proven: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In this case, Dave, as a driver for Empire Courier Service, owed a duty of care to other road users, including Victor.
Dave breached his duty of care by negligently causing the car accident while leaving the parking lot. Negligence can be established when a person fails to exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would in similar circumstances (Kenton, 2023). Dave’s negligence is evident as he caused the accident, indicating a failure to exercise reasonable care while driving.
The breach of duty caused the accident, resulting in injuries to Victor. Causation is established when the breach of duty is the proximate cause of the damages suffered. In this case, Dave’s negligent driving directly led to the car accident, which caused injuries to Victor.
Consequently, Dave’s negligence resulted in damages, namely the injuries suffered by Victor. As a result, Dave can be held liable for his negligence in causing the car accident.
Liability for Dave’s Intentional Tort of Punching Victor
Dave’s intentional act of punching Victor constitutes an intentional tort, specifically battery. Battery occurs when there is an intentional and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without their consent. In this case, Dave punched Victor in the face, causing him additional injuries.
The intentional tort of battery focuses on the intent behind the action rather than the extent of the injuries caused. Dave’s act of punching Victor clearly demonstrates intent to cause harm or offensive physical contact. Therefore, Dave can be held liable for the intentional tort of battery.
Vicarious Liability of Empire Courier Service
In addition to Dave’s individual liability, the concept of vicarious liability must be examined to determine if Empire Courier Service can be held responsible for Dave’s actions.
Vicarious liability holds employers responsible for the wrongful acts committed by their employees within the scope of their employment (Thornton, 2010). However, liability depends on whether the employee’s actions were committed during the course and within the scope of their employment.
In the case at hand, Dave’s car accident occurred while he was driving a company vehicle during working hours. As such, there is a strong argument that the accident was within the scope of his employment, making Empire Courier Service potentially vicariously liable for the damages caused by the car accident.
However, Dave’s intentional act of punching Victor was not within the scope of his employment. The act of punching Victor was a personal action driven by Dave’s offended feelings towards the insult to his employer. Consequently, Empire Courier Service is less likely to be vicariously liable for Dave’s intentional tort.
Liability for Hiring and Retaining an Employee with a History of Violence
Empire Courier Service’s liability for hiring and retaining Dave, a known hothead with a history of violence, is an important consideration.
While Empire Courier Service does not conduct criminal background checks, employers have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the hiring process. This duty includes conducting appropriate background checks and taking steps to avoid hiring individuals who may pose a foreseeable risk of harm to others.
In this case, it can be argued that Empire Courier Service failed in its duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring Dave. Considering Dave’s history of workplace violence and criminal charges from a previous employment, Empire Courier Service should have been aware of his potential risk as an employee.
By hiring and retaining an employee with a known history of violence, Empire Courier Service may be held liable under the theory of negligent hiring and retention. Negligent hiring occurs when an employer fails to exercise reasonable care in hiring an individual who poses a foreseeable risk of harm to others (Kondrasuk et al., 2001). Negligent retention, on the other hand, refers to the failure to take appropriate action when an employer becomes aware or should have become aware of an employee’s unfitness for the job.
In this case, Empire Courier Service’s failure to conduct criminal background checks or adequately assess Dave’s suitability for the position may demonstrate a lack of reasonable care in the hiring process. Therefore, Empire Courier Service could potentially be held liable for negligent hiring and retention, as their failure to screen employees with a history of violence contributed to the subsequent harm caused by Dave’s intentional tort.
Conclusion
In summary, Dave is liable for his negligence in causing the car accident and his intentional tort of punching Victor. His negligent driving breached his duty of care, directly caused the accident, and resulted in damages to Victor. Additionally, his intentional act of punching Victor constitutes an intentional tort of battery.
Empire Courier Service may be vicariously liable for the damages caused by the car accident, as it occurred within the scope of Dave’s employment. However, the intentional tort of punching Victor was a personal action outside the scope of employment, reducing the likelihood of vicarious liability for Empire Courier Service.
Furthermore, Empire Courier Service may face liability for negligent hiring and retention due to their failure to conduct criminal background checks and adequately assess Dave’s suitability as an employee, considering his history of violence.
It is important to note that the analysis provided here is based on general legal principles and may vary depending on the specific jurisdiction and applicable laws. Legal advice from a qualified attorney should be sought for a precise assessment of liability in a particular case.
References
Kenton, W. (2023). What Is Vicarious Liability? Example and How to Avoid It. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vicarious-liability.asp
Kondrasuk, J. N., Moore, H. L., & Wang, H. (2001). Negligent Hiring: The Emerging Contributor to Workplace Violence in the Public Sector. Public Personnel Management, 30(2), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600103000205
Thornton, R. (2010). Responsibility for the Acts of Others. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 23(3), 313–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2010.11928641

We've got everything to become your favourite writing service
Money back guarantee
Your money is safe. Even if we fail to satisfy your expectations, you can always request a refund and get your money back.
Confidentiality
We don’t share your private information with anyone. What happens on our website stays on our website.
Our service is legit
We provide you with a sample paper on the topic you need, and this kind of academic assistance is perfectly legitimate.
Get a plagiarism-free paper
We check every paper with our plagiarism-detection software, so you get a unique paper written for your particular purposes.
We can help with urgent tasks
Need a paper tomorrow? We can write it even while you’re sleeping. Place an order now and get your paper in 8 hours.
Pay a fair price
Our prices depend on urgency. If you want a cheap essay, place your order in advance. Our prices start from $11 per page.