Question

Brenda Byars, on her way to a business meeting and in a hurry, stopped at a Radio Shack to pick up a new car charger for her smartphone. There was a long line at one of the checkout counters, but a cashier, Phyllis Richmond, opened another counter and began loading the cash drawer. Byars told Richmond that she was in a hurry and asked Richmond to work faster. Instead, Richmond slowed her pace. At this point, Byars hit Richmond.

It is not clear whether Byars hit Richmond intentionally or, in an attempt to retrieve the car charger, hit her inadvertently. In response, Richmond grabbed Byars by the hair and hit her repeatedly in the back of the head, while Byars screamed for help. Management personnel separated the two women and questioned them about the incident. Richmond was terminated immediately for violating the store’s no-fighting policy. Byars sued Radio Shack, alleging that the store was liable for the tort (assault and battery) committed by its employee.

Under what doctrine might Radio Shack be held liable for the tort committed by Richmond?

What is the key factor in determining whether Radio Shack is liable under this doctrine?

How is Radio Shack’s potential liability affected by whether Richmond’s behavior constituted an intentional tort or a tort of negligence?

Suppose that when Richmond applied for the job at Radio Shack, she disclosed in her application that she had previously been convicted of felony assault and battery. Nevertheless, Radio Shack hired Richmond as a cashier. How might this fact affect Radio Shack’s liability for Richmond’s actions?

Answer 1

Answer 1:- The doctrine of Respondeat Superior can be applied in which the employer can be made responsible for any sort of actions performed by the employee. This doctrine is based on the fact that the employers have a better capability of withstanding the cost which could result from the tort of employee or agent.

Answer:- As per the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, the responsibility of any tort committed by the employee or agent lies on the employer in the course and scope of the employment of employees.

Answer:- The company will be responsible in both the cases under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior as there is no difference between the two types of torts. The company will be liable of tort is resulted within the scope of employment of Richmond

Answer:- It must be known to an employer that the individual who has the propensity of committing tortious act then the company will be responsible for these activities if these are performed within the scope of employment. Therefore in the given situation despite Richmond’s actions were not under the scope of employment, the company will be responsible.