Question

Colossal Company subsidiary Carz Bazaar, a new and used car dealership, hired Charles Wilson to perform various duties, such as cleaning and gassing vehicles, moving vehicles from one lot to another, and maintaining the showroom and vehicle lots. In this position, Wilson had access to keys to the vehicles through a key-control procedure. Under this procedure, an attendant keeps the keys in a control shack. When any employee wants to move a company vehicle, the attendant inputs information into a template request form. The information includes the date, time, stock number of the vehicle, name of the employee checking out the vehicle, and the destination of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle might be taken to a body shop for repairs, to a gas station, or to a company lot at a different location. Every time an employee checks out a vehicle, the reason must be for company business use. It is not necessary to put the expected return time on the form unless a vehicle was expected to be gone for a long time. Once the attendant has completed the form, she gives the keys to the employee who has requested them. When the vehicle is returned, the attendant indicates in the log that the vehicle was returned and replaces the keys. Sometimes vehicles are gone for more than one day. Some vehicles may be removed permanently if they are sold from another lot. In these cases, the managers of the other lots call to let the attendant know that the vehicle will not be coming back. Sometimes employees drive cars back and leave the keys with other employees to return to the attendant. This practice was acceptable to the dealership. One day when Gina Mitchell was the attendant in charge, Wilson asked her if he could use a car for 30 minutes on his lunch break to go to his mother's house. The attendant told him it was okay as long as he brought it back because, otherwise, she could get in trouble. Since Wilson only wanted the car for 30 minutes and she trusted him, she did not make any entry about this trip on the computer. Wilson took the car and left. On his way back to the dealership, Wilson rear-ended a car stopped at a stop light, causing injuries to the driver and a passenger. Wilson told a police officer at the scene of the accident that he was on a lunch break from his job and that he had permission to drive the car, but his boss was not aware he had the car. The injured driver and passenger sued Carz Bazaar on the grounds that it was responsible for the injuries caused by Wilson. What are the arguments for the defendants and plaintiffs?

Answer 1

The argument for the Plaintiff

The injured driver and passenger had a legal right to sue Carz Bazaar Company on grounds that it is responsible for the injuries caused by their employee Wilson.

Definitely, the car that injured the plaintiff as well as the driver who was driving it belonged to the company. Furthermore, the incident took place while Wilson was on duty and not off duty meaning his company is fully responsible for his actions. According to the legal doctrine known as Respondeat Superior Doctrine Law, an employer is responsible for the actions of their employees when the employees are acting on the scope of employment.

Explanation:

The argument for the Defendant

The injured driver and passenger had legal right to sue Wilson and not his company since the employee was acting on his own and not under the scope of employment.

Certainly, the employee took the car without the knowledge of an employer. This means that he had broken the rules and regulations of the company. Furthermore, at the time he committed the accident, he was not performing part of his duty towards his employment. For instance, he was not instructed by his employer to drive the car before the accident took place. Therefore, Wilson is totally responsible for his actions and not Carz Bazaar Company