Negligent Tort Liability Analysis: Superior Electrical Case Study
Introduction to Theory and Claims
In the Superior Electrical (Superior) case there are two different theories of liability as to
Cory Jones's vehicular accident which are Respondeat Superior and Negligent hiring. The main
legal point is if Superior can be responsible for the serious damage to Carolyn Carson and her
son. Established tort principles (Miller & Cross, 2021) dictate that both theories of negligence
are distinct in establishing liability, while being interrelated in the sense of the employee’s
employer responsibility. The facts show an employee of a suspended license with undisclosed
traffic violations driving a company vehicle who caused an accident while driving after work
hours. Complex questions of liability arise in these circumstances, which must be carefully
analysed under both theories.
Respondeat Superior Analysis
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior an employer becomes vicariously liable for
torts committed by employees when a worker is acting within the scope of employment
(Restatement (Third) of Agent § 2.04, 2006). When courts are considering their analysis of
respondeat superior liability, they decide whether the employee was performing the type of
conduct they were hired to perform, within the authorized space and time, and whether it was
even partially motivated by serving the employer's purposes (Norton v. While this
implementation is located at San Bernardino High School (San Bernardino City Unified School
District, 2008), this alone does not make it unique. A formal rule is referred to as the "coming
and going" rule that typically absolves employers of liability for accidents during an employee's
normal commute (Smith v.). Employers' Fire Insurance Co., 2009). Although Superior explicitly
wished for Jones to use the vehicle as his own and the company car had tools and materials
inside, the drive was for work purposes. In case of an employer requiring an employee to drive a
company vehicle, the court holds that the employer’s liability may extend beyond the normal
working hours (Huntsinger v. Glass Containers Corp., 1972).
Negligent Hiring Theory
Introduction to Theory and Claims
In the Superior Electrical (Superior) case there are two different theories of liability as to
Cory Jones's vehicular accident which are Respondeat Superior and Negligent hiring. The main
legal point is if Superior can be responsible for the serious damage to Carolyn Carson and her
son. Established tort principles (Miller & Cross, 2021) dictate that both theories of negligence
are distinct in establishing liability, while being interrelated in the sense of the employee’s
employer responsibility. The facts show an employee of a suspended license with undisclosed
traffic violations driving a company vehicle who caused an accident while driving after work
hours. Complex questions of liability arise in these circumstances, which must be carefully
analysed under both theories.
Respondeat Superior Analysis
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior an employer becomes vicariously liable for
torts committed by employees when a worker is acting within the scope of employment
(Restatement (Third) of Agent § 2.04, 2006). When courts are considering their analysis of
respondeat superior liability, they decide whether the employee was performing the type of
conduct they were hired to perform, within the authorized space and time, and whether it was
even partially motivated by serving the employer's purposes (Norton v. While this
implementation is located at San Bernardino High School (San Bernardino City Unified School
District, 2008), this alone does not make it unique. A formal rule is referred to as the "coming
and going" rule that typically absolves employers of liability for accidents during an employee's
normal commute (Smith v.). Employers' Fire Insurance Co., 2009). Although Superior explicitly
wished for Jones to use the vehicle as his own and the company car had tools and materials
inside, the drive was for work purposes. In case of an employer requiring an employee to drive a
company vehicle, the court holds that the employer’s liability may extend beyond the normal
working hours (Huntsinger v. Glass Containers Corp., 1972).
Negligent Hiring Theory
