Empire Courier Services Case Analysis

The case analysis involves a scenario where Dave, Empire Courier Services employee, is involved in an accident that leads to injuries to another driver, Victor. This raised the question of who is liable for Dave’s disregard in causing the accident and causing injuries to the other driver. Also, after what may be considered as a provocation by Victor, the situation was further aggravated by Dave punching the victim, leading to more injuries. This raised queries on who is responsible for Dave’s deliberate tort for hitting Victor. Around the firm, Dave is viewed as a firebrand. In his previous employment, Dave was involved in a fistfight at the workplace with a colleague, occasioning in a criminal lawsuit.

In the scenario, both Dave and the firm have an evident employer-employee relation as Dave has been employed by the company to accomplish various physical services. According to DeMott (2018), under the employer-employee relation, a member of staff is the focus on the employer’s control. In general, every employee is regarded as an employer’s agent and is considered an agent of the employer. DeMott (2018)describes that an agent is a party authorized to perform for and on behalf of the entity, in this case, is Empire Courier Service. This kind of relationship is essential for matters concerning tort act, wage act, discrimination act, and copyright act. After an agency relationship has been recognized, it develops into fiduciary relation of conviction and assurance, consequently ensuing in the formation of specific responsibilities to be conducted by the agent and the principal. The responsibility of performance includes two characteristics. The first aspect entails an agent conducting the responsibilities, as stated in the agency accord. The second aspect states that an agent should execute the stipulated responsibilities with practical skill and care. With the provided data, it can be resolved that Dave failed to conduct a characteristic of his responsibilities appropriately. This gave rise to the likelihood of Empire Courier Service looking for solutions against Dave for breaching of fiduciary obligations. Furthermore, as the principal entity, the firm has the justification for pursuing tort resolutions against Dave for his neglect that has prospectively instigated destruction and allowing the firm to end the agency-relation.

According to Kubasek et al., (2016), within offensive acts perpetrated by agents that ensue in damages to a third party, the agent is individually accountable for their deeds despite the entity’s classification. Nonetheless, it should be assumed that the principle entity can be accountable for deeds executed by agents, and this liability can originate from sanctioned or unsanctioned actions. If the affiliation institutes that the principal is responsible and controls the agent’s acts, then the entity may be found accountable. Furthermore, under the law, an entity can be deemed responsible for the offensive conduct of an agent under two circumstances. The first circumstance is that the principle instructed the agent to perpetrate the offense. The second aspect states that if the principal fails to offer tools or presents insufficient directions to the agent regarding the need to engage capable personnel, the act then holds the principal accountable to a third party for neglect. The famous take-out from these stipulations is principals can be deemed accountable within offensive acts for neglect in engaging an agent. This denotes that principals should use the appropriate procedures in employing an agent.

In regards to physical assault, both Dave and Empire Courier Service may be held for the accident and injuries occasioning from the physical assault on Victor. Despite the company being aware of Dave’s character, they still failed to execute a background assessment and was employed through disregard. As a result, both parties, Dave and the Courier company, can be held accountable for both offenses perpetrated by Dave. One stipulation that may vindicate the company from any liabilities within the offensive acts perpetrated by Dave will be if a court of law concludes that Dave averted from the entity’s core business. This means that the principle entity may not be found liable for the damages caused.

References

Kubasek, N., Browne, M. N., Herron, D. J., Dhooge, L. J., & Barkacs, L. (2016). Dynamic business law: The essentials (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

DeMott, D. (2018). Fiduciary Principles in Agency Law. Forthcoming in Evan J. Criddle, Paul B. Miller, and Robert H. Sitkoff, Eds., The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law (New York: Oxford University Press 2018).

Hire a Writer