Discuss whether the principal is liable in each of the following situations

Question

a. Patricia hires Andrew, an attorney, to negotiate a contract to purchase some property. She agrees to pay him $75 an hour for his services, and he agrees to use his own office and secretarial staff to negotiate and draft the agreement. One day, Andrew is driving his own automobile to a meeting with Edward to discuss the purchase of the land that he owns. Andrew drives too fast for conditions and has a minor traffic accident that results in $600 damage to the other vehicle.
b. Mel owns a retail store. He hires Sarah to work for him as a clerk in the home furnishings department. Mel instructs Sarah to make certain representations to customers regarding a microwave oven. Mel knows these misrepresentations are false, but Sarah does not. Henrietta buys a microwave from Sarah in reliance on the misrepresentations.
c. ABC Inc. hires Keith as an outside salesman and instructs him to call on customers in a specified territory and to solicit orders for its products. One day Keith is driving the company car a little too fast for conditions on his way to call on a client. He accidentally drives the wrong way on a one-way street and has an accident with another vehicle that results in $6,000 in property damage and $30,000 in medical expenses.
d. The A & B Machine Company (ABMC) hires John as an outside salesman for its computers. It sets high sales quotas for him and instructs him to beat up salesmen from competing firms in order to keep them away from ABMC customers. In order to meet his monthly sales quota, John roughs up Ralph, who is a salesman for a competing firm and then tells Ralph to find his own customers and to stay away from John's territory.

Answer 1

a . Patricia is the principal and Andrew is an independent contractor. Andrew's accident was caused by his own negligence. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal is held liable for the negligence of her agent. However, because Andrew is an independent contractor, the doctrine would not apply here, and Patricia is not liable.
b. Mel is liable, because he is a principal who has authorized his agent to commit a tortuous act with respect to the property or person of another.
c. Even though Keith's acts were unauthorized by ABC, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the company will be liable for Keith's negligent driving within the scope of his employment.
d. ABMC is liable for the intentional torts of assault and battery committed by John, because it instructed him to beat up competing salesmen and because the tort is so reasonably connected with John's employment as to be within the scope of his employment. John is also liable for these intentional torts. Both ABMC and John may also have criminal liability for John's actions.