Discussion and Debate – Respondeat Superior
Under what doctrine discussed in this chapter might Buy-Mart be held liable for the tort committed by Watts?
Respondeat Superior is a doctrine that holds the employer liable for torts committed by their employees during the course of work. The doctrine can be understood in different ways. Firstly, the servant’s actions are the company’s actions. This viewpoint does not eliminate the possibility of a different decision from a higher authority within the company. In this particular case, Watt’s decision to react to Meyer’s provocative behavior in a violent manner placed Buy-Mart in a precarious position. The doctrine assumes that Watts acted on behalf of Buy-Mart. A different yet rare perspective is one that would separate the employer from their servant[1]. In such a case, Watts would be charged based on Meyer’s unreasonable reaction to slow service. However, the second perspective rarely sees the light of day, while the first prevails in most cases, with sufficient reasons. If Watts had served Meyer extraordinarily, Buy-Mart would have taken credit for this and not the specific employee. Thus, in the same manner, employers such as Buy-Mart are expected to take responsibility for their employees’ mistakes. Our assignment writing services will allow you to attend to more important tasks as our experts handle your task.
2. What is the key factor in determining whether Buy-Mart is liable under this doctrine?
First, the contract between Watts and Buy-Mart is a determining factor for liability. Watts is an employee at Buy-Mart. Buy-Mart provides all the necessary resources for Watts to perform her duties. Thus, Buy-Mart controls Watt’s actions during working hours within the business premises. This confirms that Watts is Buy-Mart’s servant, making the boss liable for the tort in question[2]. Secondly, the reasonable person standard can be used to determine liability for negligence. As demonstrated in the case, the client hit/assaulted the employee after demanding faster services. Watts, the employee, hit the client back in self-defense, which is an action that any reasonable person would take in a similar situation. This consideration turns the case around and omits Buy-Mart and Watt’s liability for the tort[3].
3. Did Watts’s behaviour constitute an intentional tort or a tort of negligence? How would this difference affect Buy-Mart’s potential liability?
An intentional tort is an act that is not permissible by law yet committed knowingly. In this type of tort, the defendant intends to commit a certain act but does not necessarily have to harbor intentions to cause harm to the other party[4]. A tort of negligence takes place when an individual suffers an injury due to another’s failure to carry out their duty[5]. Therefore, Watt’s behaviour constituted an intentional tort, specifically assault and battery. The difference between the two types of torts introduces a change in potential liability. In intentional torts, Buy-Mart has an opportunity to argue that Watts acted out of self-defense because Lynne provoked her. In case of negligence torts, Buy-Mart would lack the same opportunity because Watts knew that violence would hurt Lynne.
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?
In such a case, the court would hold Buy-Mart liable for Watt’s actions. This is due to the company’s negligence leading to wrongful hiring, which is based on the assumption that Watts would not assault or batter clients[6].
Debate This: The doctrine of respondeat superior should be modified to make agents solely liable for some of their own tortious (wrongful) acts.
The doctrine of respondeat superior should be modified to make agents solely liable for some of their own tortious (wrongful) acts. Such a perspective would be based on a perspective that views the employer separately from the employer. Suppose an individual carries out intentional torts without any negligence on the employer’s part, such as wrongful hiring; the agent should be held liable for their acts[7].
Bibliography
Greenwood, Daniel J. H. 2021. Understanding Respondeat Superior. https://sites.hofstra.edu/daniel-greenwood/understanding-respondeat-superior/.
Miller, Roger LeRoy. 2017. Business Law Today. 11. Boston: Cengage Learning.
[1] Greenwood, Daniel J. H. 2021. Understanding Respondeat Superior. https://sites.hofstra.edu/daniel-greenwood/understanding-respondeat-superior/.
[2] Ibid
[3] Miller, Roger LeRoy. 2017. Business Law Today. 11. Boston: Cengage Learning, p.106.
[4] Ibid p.92.
[5] Ibid p.105.
[6] Greenwood, Daniel J. H. 2021. Understanding Respondeat Superior. https://sites.hofstra.edu/daniel-greenwood/understanding-respondeat-superior/.
[7] Ibid.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Discussion and Debate – Respondeat Superior
Answer the 4 questions based on the information given. Then, discuss your position on the debate of this topic.
Debate This: Respondeat Superior
From Business Law II
Chapter 2, p. 661
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.
1. Under what doctrine discussed in this chapter might Buy-Mart be held liable for the tort committed by Watts?
2. What is the key factor in determining whether Buy-Mart is liable under this doctrine?
3. Did Watts’s behavior constitute an intentional tort or a tort of negligence? How would this difference affect Buy-Mart’s potential liability?
4. 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?
Debate This:
The doctrine of respondeat superior should be modified to make agents solely liable for some of their own tortious (wrongful) acts.