Question

Pete is an employee in Chris' small golf store. Pete likes to practice his swing and likes to hit balls off a wall at the back of the store. Several times, golf balls have hit customers and other employees. Chris knows he should ask Pete to stop, but he thinks it's funny. One day, Pete "chips" a ball and hits a customer in the eye, causing severe damage. If Chris is the principal and Pete is the agent, Chris is:

Multiple Choice

• immune from liability because Pete committed the wrongful act, and Chris did not directly order him to do so.

• protected by respondeat superior.

• immune from liability because no one had previously been seriously injured.

• directly liable.

14.

Which of the following was the result in Roberts v. Danner, the case in the text in which an employee driving his personal vehicle to see a physician for a non-work related injury struck and injured the plaintiff on a road leased by the employer, and the issue was whether the employer was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries?

Multiple Choice

• The employer was not held liable because the employee was in his personal vehicle which negates liability based on an agency theory.

• The employer was held liable under the theory of strict liability based on the accident occurring on a road leased by the employer.

• The employer was not held liable because the employee was not acting within the course and scope of his employment.

• The employer was held liable under the theory of respondeat superior.

• The following is false regarding the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) permitted by Title VII.

  Multiple Choice

• An employer may refuse to hire a man with an Asian heritage as a bouncer in a bar because he believes people with such a heritage are not aggressive enough.

• A Christian church would not have to consider a Muslim as an applicant for choir director.

• No BFOQ exception is permitted with respect to discrimination based on color.

• A gym may refuse to hire a male attendant for a women’s locker room.

Answer 1

Directly Liable

Pete is Chris’ employee. While it is true that Chris has not given order to Pete to practice his swings, Chris obviously knows the possible risk for fellow commuters, employees, and the customers. It becomes Chris’ duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury to the others. This means that Chris should stop Pete’s reckless behavior. The failure to do so make Chris negligent and directly liable for the injury.

---

The employer was not held liable because the employee was not acting within the course and scope of his employment

In this case, even though the road was leased by the employer, there was no possible precaution that the employer could have taken to prevent the damage. In addition to this, the employee was driving his own car and was also going for a personal work. This makes it completely out of the scope of the employer.

---

An employer may refuse to hire a man with an Asian heritage as a bouncer in a bar because he believes people with such a heritage are not aggressive enough.

The other three statements are correct and falls within the scope of BFOQ. Thus this is the only statement that does not have any basis in BFOQ.