Reference no: EM133193546 , Length: 2 pages

Part A- Debate This:BASE ON THE INFORMATION BELOW

The doctrine of respondeat superior should be modified to make agents solely liable for some of their own tortious (wrongful) acts

Lynne Meyer, on her way to a business meeting and in a hurry, stopped by a Buy-Mart store for a new car charger for her smartphone. There was a long line at one of the checkout counters, but a cashier, Valerie Watts, opened another counter and began loading the cash drawer. Meyer told Watts that she was in a hurry and asked Watts to work faster. Watts, however, only slowed her pace. At this point, Meyer hit Watts. It is not clear whether Meyer hit Watts intentionally or, in an attempt to retrieve the car charger, hit her inadvertently. In response, Watts grabbed Meyer by the hair and hit her repeatedly in the back of the head, while Meyer screamed for help. Management personnel separated the two women and questioned them about the incident. Watts was immediately fired for violating the store's no-fighting policy. Meyer subsequently sued Buy-Mart, alleging that the store was liable for the tort (assault and battery) committed by its employee. Using the information presented in the chapter, answer the following questions.

Under what doctrine discussed in this chapter might Buy-Mart be held liable for the tort committed by Watts?
What is the key factor in determining whether Buy-Mart is liable under this doctrine?
Did Watts's behavior constitute an intentional tort or a tort of negligence? How would this differ-ence affect Buy-Mart's potential liability
Suppose that when Watts applied for the job at Buy-Mart, she disclosed in her application that she had previously been convicted of felony assault and battery. Nevertheless, Buy-Mart hired Watts as a cashier. How might this fact affect Buy-Mart's liability for Watts's actions

Part B-write an opinion about the following post (referring this same debate )

I do not agree with the statement "The doctrine of respondeat superior should be modified to make agents solely liable for some of their own tortious (wrongful) acts"

There are occasions where the principal should be liable for the agent's intentional wrongful acts committed within the course and scope of the employment. There are different factors used to assess whether the company is liable for tortious acts. For instance, whether the employer had a reason to know that the employee would be capable of doing the act in question and whether the employee had ever done it in the past. In addition, the seriousness of the crimes committed should be considered.

However, my opinion about the case provided is that Buy-Mart should not be liable for the battery and assault committed by its employee. The employee acted on her own. There are no indications that suggest the employee would react violently nor any prior history of similar events.