Question

CASE BRIEF 16.4 Lange v. National Biscuit Company 211 N.W.2d 783 (Minn. 1973) FACTS: Ronnell Lynch was a cookie salesman for Nabisco. Jerome Lange was the manager of a small grocery story on Lynch’s route. Nabisco had received complaints about Lynch being overly aggressive in taking shelf space. On May 1, 1969, while Lynch was delivering merchandise to Lange’s store, Lynch and Lange became involved in an argument and Lynch assaulted Lange and threw merchandise around the store. Lange sued Nabisco for his injuries. DECISION BELOW: The jury found for Lange even though Lynch’s acts were outside the scope of employment because Nabisco was negligent in hiring and retaining Lynch. The judge granted Nabisco a judgment NOV and Lange appealed. ISSUE ON APPEAL: Was Nabisco responsible for Lynch’s conduct when it was not part of his scope of employment? DECISION: Yes. Generally, masters are not held liable for intentional torts unless the master requested it of the servant. But here, there was an implied request through Nabisco’s inaction with respect to complaints about Lynch.

Questions

1. What previous indications did Nabisco have that Mr. Lynch might cause some problems?

2. What test does the court give for determining scope of employment?

3. What is the "motivation test," and does this court accept or reject it?

Answer 1

Answer:

1) Between the period March 1 and May 1, 1969, there have complaints about Mr Lynch’sbehavior from numerous grocers that he is overly aggressive while performing his duties. This was a clear indication that in future Mr Lynch might cause a problem while performing his duties on Nabisco’s behalf.

2) The court determines the scope of employment by analyzing two possibilities. Firstly, it is important to understand whether the assault was motivated by business or personal consideration. Secondly, if it was motivated as an incident to employment.

3) It is important to understand the motivation of the assault. Whether it was a personal, or it was done for the furtherance of the employer’s profits; this is the “motivation test”. The court rules out the possibilities of Mr Lynch’s personal intent since in this case, the employee assaulted while performing the duties for his employer. Thus, it rejected the motivation test.

*hope this will help you, thank you & rate.