Business Law Paper

Place Your Order Now

How Does Our System Work?

It will take just three steps and two minutes to place your order

Submit your Question

Fill in the order form with all your instructions. Click submit then complete payment for your order.

Best Writer Assigned

We review your order's requirements to determine the most suited writer for it. We then assign it.

Download Your Paper

The writer completes your assignment and uploads the answer. You can now download your complete paper.

26k
+
Happy clients
8k
+
Active writers
98k
+
Orders completed
150
+
Support members

Calculate the price of your order

$ H. School
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ U. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed
$ P. Graduate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
  • Proceed
$ Doctorate
  • Single Spacing
  • Double Spacing
Proceed

24-7-custom-writing-serviceBusiness Law Assignment

Business Law Discussion Questions

 

 

Burlarley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Issue

Whether the doctrine of respondeat superior was applicable and hence making the defendant vicariously liable for its employee’s tortious acts towards the plaintiff.

Rule

The general rule of law established in Klunz v. New Netherlands Routes, Inc. (2009) is that an employer is only vicariously liable for employees’ tortious acts where the alleged acts or omissions causing harm to third parties are committed within the scope of employment and in furtherance of the business of the employer.

Analysis

In this case, the employee, a cashier at the defendant’s store, jokingly in an effort to make her work “go a little faster” threw some items at the plaintiff’s face (Burlarley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2010). As the court concluded, such an act by the cashier is not something that cashiers commonly do in the course of their employment and neither does it form part of their job descriptions. It departs to a substantial extent from the usual methods of performing a cashier’s job duties. Therefore, no liability can hardly attach on the employer.

Conclusion

The case should be decided in the defendant’s favor since it was not vicariously liable as the employee acted way outside her scope of employment in furtherance of personal desires that had nothing to do with her employer’s business.

Vernon v. Schuster, d/b/a Diversity Heating and Plumbing

Issue

Was the plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant has succeeded to his father’s liability to him sufficient to constitute a valid cause of action?.................GET A PLAGIARISM FREE COPY