Question 1
The doctrine of respondeat respoir asserts that the employer is completely relived of any vicarious liability whatsoever in the case where the employee is found to have committed torts in a frolic engagement. This means that the employer is exempted from the liability when the employee admits to having made a major physical departure from the scope of practice as stated by the employer.
The doctrine of frolic and detour provides for the employer to be declared free of any vicarious liability only when the employee is proved to have been acting beyond or out of the scope of practice as described thereof. in this case, the employee will be fully liable of the damages incurred during as of the tort and thus for the employer, to find that the employee was acting out of the scope of practice means that the employee is exempted from incurring the damages resulting from the tort. However, if the departure from the scope of practice is proved to be minor, the employer may still be liable.
Question 2
Siegenthaler could as well recover from Spires after the court proved that the employer was not liable. This is on the basis that the exemption of the company as a liable party directly means that Spires was acting on his own volition and thus liable for his actions in reference to the frolic and detour legal provision. Siegenthaler was ethically right to bring the case against Johnson Welded since he could not on his own ascertain whether the employee was on a scope of practice departure or not. The assumption is that as long as the vehicle is listed under the company, then the employee is an agent of the company while acting within the scope of practice.
Question 3
Determining whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment needs a very specific approach so that the liabilities are not advanced wrongly to the wrong party or the complainant does not act to extort from a party that is not liable. This involves determining whether the employee’s conduit was of a same general nature or was one that could be described as incident to the activity type for which the employee is hired to perform. If it is of the same general nature, the employer is acquitted of any charges whatsoever and if its incident to the activity for which the employee is hired, this cannot be a frolic case and thus the employer is deemed liable.
Question 1
The going and coming rule states that an employee cannot receive compensation from the employer for injuries suffered while going or coming to work. Worker’s compensation is justified if only an employee suffers an injury while in line of duty or engaging in activity that is beneficial to the employer. This brings forth the issue of work site. When an employee is going from or coming to work, the concept of work site is excluded since the employee is not within the work boundaries or is not engaged in an activity directly benefitting the employer.
Question 2
Morgenstern did not want to be found with the scope of work when the accident occurred. This would have definitely transferred the liability from Morgenstern to the company which was not beneficial to him since he was the owner of the business. Going by the coming and going rule, ANPAC was justified to deny Morgenstern coverage on its commercial insurance policy. It is clear that Morgenstern’s activities when the incident occurred were not related to the company in any way since he was on domestic business to see his wife. On the other hand, business is treated as different entity from the owner.
Question 3
Compensation from a company’s insurance policy is comparatively larger from a compensation based on a personal policy. This is why Farah wanted to be compensated by the company and not Morgenstern. It was thus the intention of Farah that Morgenstern be found to be operating within the scope of the company.
