[needhelpnow]

Pine, an employee of Global Messenger Co., was hired to deliver highly secret corporate documents for Global’s clients throughout the world. Unknown to Global, Pine carried a concealed pistol. While Pine was making a delivery, he suspected an attempt was being made to steal the package, drew his gun and shot Kent, an innocent passerby. Kent will not recover damages from Global if:

A. Global discovered that Pine carried a weapon and did nothing about it.

B. Global instructed its messengers NOT to carry weapons.

C. Pine was correct and an attempt was being made to steal the package.

D. Pine’s weapon was unlicensed and illegal.

The correct answer is D.

Kent will not recover damages from Global if Pine’s weapon was unlicensed and illegal. This question tests your knowledge of respondeat superior—a legal theory whereby an employer is liable to third parties for the acts of an employee. Pine is an employee of Global Messenger Service. In the course of delivering corporate documents, he shot an innocent third party. While this act was done in the scope of employment, if the weapon was unlicensed and illegal, Kent (the injured party) would not be able to recover from Pine’s employer. The reason is that doing an illegal act would not be considered acting within the scope of his employment. The other alternatives would not prevent Kent from recovering damages from Global.

~~~

My Question is, let’s say the gun was legal and licensed, would the answer then be “B”, because when clearly instructed NOT to carry the gun, the employer carried it anyway. Would that be considered working Outside the scope of employment?

Thank you guys

[Anonymous]

I would say, Yes. If the weapon was legal, they knew he had a concealed carry permit, and they told him not to carry it, then he would be working outside of the scope of his employment.

[spinfuzer]

Pretty should it would be that Global and Kent would be liable for damages.

If an employer says “You cannot talk on the phone while driving” and you talk to a client while driving to the client, both the employee and employer are liable, even if the employer prohibits talking on the phone.

So in this case, if the weapon was legal and the employer and the employee agreed not that he should not be carrying a weapon, it does not matter. He is carrying the weapon in in order to protect the corporate documents. The act of protecting the documents is within the scope of employment. He and Global will be liable for damages.

Reference: Becker R8: Agency(III)(C)(3)

FAR - 08/08/14 - 93
BEC - 08/28/14 - 95
REG - 10/11/14 - 96
AUD - 11/30/14 - 99

[needhelpnow]

NICE EXPLANATION @spinfuzer!

[Author]

Replies