The suit filed against Software, Inc. by Jimmy's mother, John and the Bar should be dismissed on several grounds. First, Coleman was not acting within the course and scope of his employment by drinking and blowing a ball of fire. Secondly, an employer is not responsible for the criminal actions of its employee as that is an intervening cause that the employer cannot control.
As for the wrongful termination claim of Coleman, it should not be sustainable because wrongful termination must be based on discrimination because of race, sex, age, disability or religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, if the employer terminated Coleman without an interview, he could sue for breach of contract (employment contract) or breach of the policies and procedures of the company.
xt-align: justify">As for the jewelry store, it cannot hold Software, Inc. liable for Coleman's actions because they were also outside of the scope of employment and involved a criminal act for which it has not liability.
The jewelry store cannot recover from Software. Respondeat Superior is A legal doctrine, most commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency. Here C went to the mall to buy a present for his wife, not on the business of Soft.
Will Software Inc. be liable to the owners of Jimmy’s Bar? What about Jimmy’s mom? The same theory of Respondeat Superior would apply to both cases. Soft will argue that C was on a frolic and not on business
Jimmy's will argue that C was trying to impress John and Jimmy and as a traveling salesman meeting with clients is part of his job. We are expressly told that C was talking to Jimmy about business so Soft will be liable.
The Court in Bricker v. Snook, (1989) Ohio App. LEXIS 1076 stated “It is the universally accepted rule that an employer is liable for personal injuries or the death of another person, or injury to another person's property caused by his employee's negligence, misconduct, misfeasance, or wrongful, improper, or unlawful acts, when done within the scope of his authority, whether the authority is express or implied, or inferred from the general course of business."
“An employer may be liable for the intentional torts of its employees as the law now imposes liability whether the employee’s purpose, however misguided, is wholly or in part to further the master’s business.” State v Hoshijo ex rel. White, 102 Hawaii 307, 318, FN 27 (Hawaii, 2003).
As per the transcript, Coleman works for Software Inc., a Delaware based corporation that sells security equipment to businesses and bars. Coleman’s duties include traveling to prospective clients and meeting with representatives of the businesses in their sales division. During a sales trip to Smalltown, Colorado in March 2008, Coleman wanted to buy an anniversary present for his wife. Coleman went to the mall to buy the present. While at the mall, Coleman saw a ring that he really liked but could not afford. He decided to steal it. He then went to Jimmy’s Poor-Man’s Bar to meet with a client, John. Jimmy’s wasn’t a client of Coleman’s,
but John didn’t like his customers to see him “doing business.” Coleman was talking with Jimmy about business when he spilled his drink all over the bar.
That made him think about this cool trick where you put pure grain alcohol in your mouth, blow it out and light it. Coleman took a big drink, took out his lighter, and said, “Watch this!” He lit his lighter, blew the liquid and a fireball went through the room. The fireball hit Jimmy and killed him instantly. The bar also sustained a lot of damage. Software Inc. fired Coleman without even interviewing him to get his version of the events. Software Inc.’s handbook required all employees to be interviewed before termination.
A week later, Coleman called John to make amends. When they met, Coleman said, "The company and I are so sorry about what happened. Let me take you out to dinner – Software Inc. will pay the bill." They went to a restaurant, and instantly got into an argument because John told Coleman he was fat. Coleman punched John in the eye, causing severe eye damage. Jimmy’s mother (his only heir), John, and Jimmy’s Poor-Man’s Bar (which was owned by five men, including Jimmy), sued Software Inc. for the damage caused by Coleman. Coleman sues Software Inc. for wrongful termination.
- Alcoholic essays
- Soft Drinks essays
- Jurisprudence essays
- Social Injustice essays
- Juvenile Justice essays
- Beef essays
- Beer essays
- Beverages essays
- Bread essays
- Burger essays
- Cake essays
- Coconut essays
- Coffee essays
- Cooking essays
- Crowd essays
- Cuisines essays
- Dairy essays
- Desserts essays
- Dinner essays
- Drink essays
- Fast Food essays
- Favorite Food essays
- Food Safety essays
- Food Security essays
- Food Waste essays
- Fruit essays
- Ginger essays
- Hamburger essays
- Ice Cream essays
- Juice essays
- Lemon essays
- Meal essays
- Meat essays
- Oreo essays
- Organic Food essays
- Pizza essays
- Rice essays
- Sainsbury essays
- Sugar essays
- Taste essays
- Tea essays
- Wine essays
- Agreement essays
- Business Law essays
- Common Law essays
- Community Policing essays
- Constitution essays
- Consumer Protection essays
- Contract essays
- Contract Law essays