Preview

Co-Employee Liability In Multiple Cases

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
142 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Co-Employee Liability In Multiple Cases
The common thread amongst the multiple cases discussing co-employee liability throughout the common law was that if the defendant co-employee created the danger, had superior knowledge of danger, or through his or her actions or inactions otherwise caused the plaintiff co-worker to encounter the danger, the defendant co-worker is liable. The supervisor directed a co-employee to connect a hose to a compressor. The co-employee then shook the hose to remove kinks and in the process caused the plaintiff to trip. In finding a submissible case against the co-employee for negligence, the Supreme Court focused on the fact that the danger was not caused by any defect in the hose itself, rather, the danger was created by the co-employee's handling of

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Culpepper V. Weihrauch KG

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Contributory Negligence Summary in Culpepper v. Weihrauch KG, ETC.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, M.D. ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION…

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thus, the negligence claim with this case failed on the reason that the Touche(defendant) owed no duty of care to Ultramares (plaintiff) because Ultramares was not a primary beneficiary of Touche’s professional audit. The court found that Touche was guilty of ordinary negligence but not fraud. Over the years the rule of Ultramares has been expanded in some cases to the point that the gross negligence noted in Ultramares case has been eliminated. Ultramares Corp. v Touche is the leading case regarding the application of privity.…

    • 650 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Stokely is responsible for injuring the motorcyclist while driving a vehicle from AAA Auto Dealers. Employers are vicariously liable under the respondeat superior doctrine. In the respondeat superior doctrine, in most cases, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the scope of employment. John Stokely used the company’s vehicle for personal reasons, regardless of what they were, and negligently collided into and injured someone on a motorcycle. John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers. Not only did he use the company’s car for personal reasons, his boss accompanied him on the visit to a family member’s house for dinner. The boss was excusing John Stokely’s behavior, allowing him to use company property for a different purpose other than what it was intended for. John Stokely’s boss accompanied him to his cousin’s house so it can be argued that John Stokely had “permission” to do what he wanted. The boss will be held responsible by the owner(s) of AAA Auto Dealers as well by allowing John Stokely to act outside of his job description.…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In a wrongful death suit for Stephan Andres the trial court did not err by rejecting the plaintiffs offered jury instructions for not providing a supervisor in the locker room required by Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 65521, subd. (a), requiring that every pool be under the care of a competent person, which is not related to a lifeguard but the person in charge of the sanitation and hygiene of the pool. Negligence in itself only pertains if the person suffering the death or injury was one of the relatives for which the protection statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted. Stephen, a victim of drowning rather than unsanitary facilities, was not related to the person whose protection section 65521 was…

    • 406 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hahnousek Case Summary

    • 570 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The backhoe operator can not be charged with a crime in this case even though his mistake is what lead to the accident occurring. Because the Hanousek was the supervisor and “could have prevented” the accident from occurring the law lays the responsibility solely on him. The backhoe operator would basically be unable to be convicted because most corporations have clauses in place to shield employees and leaving all the responsibility on their superiors.…

    • 570 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    c. Negligence both failing to instruct employees how to properly serve hot coffee and for failing to warn business invitees of the danger of handling coffee at the the temperature Burger King coffee was served.…

    • 844 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Samantha Smith Case

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages

    During an interview of the employees, many of them consented that there could possibly be a safer way to stock the shelves without putting the customers at risk. However, the jury decided that due to the customer’s failure to pay a certain amount of attention that he is partially at fault for his injuries.…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Legt 1710 Assignment 1

    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages

    * Jones L Introduction to Business Law 1st, 2011, C11 the Tort Law of Negligence. P342…

    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    midterm mgmt 520

    • 264 Words
    • 1 Page

    The key element of a Tort of Negligence that the railroad uses in their defense is proximate cause, which relates to whether the harm was foreseeable. Long island railroad attendants could not have foreseen the possibility of injuring Mrs. Palsgraph. Thus they did not breach any duty to her. Every person is required to stay clear from activities that may cause any injuries to others, in case of proximate cause, there has to be a natural relation between the causative factor and its effect and not if it could remotely injure a third party. In this case, injury in some form was possible. Negligent conduct resulting in injury to the plaintiff will lead to a liability if it could have been reasonably foreseen. Long island rail road definitely did not owe any duty of care towards the plaintiff. There was no element of the negligence of proximate cause in this case. The rail road would be negligent if any ham was caused to the plaintiff by objects falling from a passing train on the tracks.…

    • 264 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Trina's Negligence

    • 2502 Words
    • 11 Pages

    The owner set up the requirement that her employees would check the aisles every hour. Trina did attempt to exercise reasonable care. Subsequently, the length of time is considered when looking at the dangerous condition. This is to say, the length of time the condition had been there. Here, the spill happened between 10 am and 11:30am, when the cashier had checked the aisle at 10 to the time of the accident at 11:30. This indicates that the spill had not been there very long, if it was there at all. The cashier stated that the aisle had no leaks, water displays, or water guns anywhere near it, so Trina took ordinary care with her hour inspection instruction. Additionally, the water could not have been there long under the circumstances because there was no water around the area that would make the owner or cashier aware of the fact that water could be on the aisle. Instead, it would be very unlikely water would be on the floor on that aisle, so the length of time here was more reasonable. Had there been water displays, the cashier and owner should have checked the aisles more frequently. In Owens v. Coffee Corner the court found that the owner was liable for coffee that had “just spilled” because it was reasonable foreseeable that coffee-shop customers would spill coffee. However in a camera store where someone “just spilled” soda they were not liable because no refreshments were available and it was unlikely someone would spill. Similarly here, Trina owns a toy store that does not sell refreshments, and spills like this have never happened before. Thus, she is likely not negligent for the spill because the time frame here was not long under the…

    • 2502 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Law 421 week 2 work

    • 1527 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Ms Liebeck spilled her coffee on herself which caused her to get burned. She sustained 3rd degree burns because the coffee was brewed at a higher temperature than other restaurants. The case was ruled in favor of Ms. Liebeck. The jury declared McDonald’s negligent because their coffee was found to be 20 degrees hotter than it should have been. McDonald’s had received many complaints about their coffee being too hot and failed to do anything about it. So their actions were considered to be reckless because they did not warn their customers about the temperature of the…

    • 1527 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Law Case

    • 5575 Words
    • 23 Pages

    PUSEY, EXR., APPELLANT, v. BATOR ET AL.; GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION, APPELLEE. [Cite as Pusey v. Bator (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 275.] Torts — Wrongful death — Employer hires independent contractor to provide armed security guards to protect property — Inherently dangerous work exception — If someone is injured by weapon as a result of a guard’s negligence, employer is vicariously liable even though guard responsible is an employee of the independent contractor. (No. 00-1787 — Submitted October 30, 2001 — Decided February 27, 2002.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 98 C.A. 55. __________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT When an employer hires an independent contractor to provide armed security guards to protect property, the inherently-dangerous-work exception is triggered such that if someone is injured by the weapon as a result of a guard’s negligence, the employer is vicariously liable even though the guard responsible is an employee of the independent contractor. __________________ DOUGLAS, J. At all times relevant herein, defendant-appellee, Greif…

    • 5575 Words
    • 23 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Evaluating Teachers

    • 3164 Words
    • 13 Pages

    I write this letter to completely reassure you that we are taking the concerns you brought up with the utmost seriousness that they deserve. As a matter of fact, we have investigated the matter the last couple of days to ascertain the facts and events of what happened in Ms. Paulson’s Computer Technology Class on Monday during the third period. There were 27 students present that day alongside Ms. Paulson, and we have conducted interviews with some of them individually in order to get to the bottom of this issue. While it is certain that it was one of the students who momentarily put the pictures in question on the projector, it is also without a doubt our goal to never have to expose our students to any such material; and the adults in our staff certainly are expected to uphold their responsibility of keeping a safe environment for every child under our care, be it from harm of a physical or mental nature.…

    • 3164 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Torts Breakdown of Elements

    • 3166 Words
    • 13 Pages

    Explain the general differences between intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. Additionally, explain the elements of intentional torts and negligence and provide working examples to illustrate each.…

    • 3166 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    1. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assume the risk of particular accident?…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays