Respondeat Superior on Melnicks Dog

Respondeat Superior is a doctrine under which a principal or an employer is held liable for the wrongful acts committed by agents or employers while acting within the course and scope of their agency or employment (Miller & Jentz, 2010). The factors that are considered in determining whether a particular act is subject to Respondeat Superior are:

• Whether the employee’s act was authorized by the employer.

• The time, place, and purpose of the act.

• Whether the act was one commonly performed by employees on behalf of the employer.

• The extent to which the employers interest was advanced by the act.

• The extent to which the private interests of the employee are involved.

• Whether the employer furnished the means of instrumentality (truck or machine) by which the injury was inflicted.

• Whether the employer has reason to know that the employee would do the act in question and whether the employee had done it before.

• Whether the act involved the commission of a serious crime.

(Miller & Jentz, 2010)

In this situation the tort that was used was negligence. This would be by that the clerk who was driving the grocery store truck was negligent when they had run over Melnick’s dog. If the clerk did not have the permission to drive the truck and did so anyways the grocery should not be held reliable. The person who should be responsible is the clerk who hit the dog. Some defenses that the defendant could bring up are that the clerk used the truck without permission and that he did not act within authority of the store. The clerk should have taken the means to call 911 other than taking upon himself to drive the grocery store truck to take the lady to the hospital.

Resources

Miller, R., & Jentz, G. (2010). Fundamentals of business law: Summarized cases. (8th ed., Vol. Unit 2, p. 90). Mason, OH : South-Western Cengage Learning