B. Thomas Orton was not within the time and space limits of his employment Thomas Orton was not within the time and space limits of his employment when he committed the tortious act against Martin Kahn. For Kingsport to be found liable for Thomas Orton’s actions under a theory of respondeat superior, his actions must be within the scope of his employment. Lev v. Beverly Enters.-Massachusetts, 457 Mass. 234, 238, 929 N.E.2d 303, 308 (2010) The rule for scope of employment, as stated in Lev v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, is “the 'conduct of an agent is within the scope of employment . . . if it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits”. Id. at 238. To meet the element, you must have findings of being within both …show more content…
This analysis will treat them as one question as well, but the analysis will look into both factors. The rule generated from Lev has its genesis in the case of Vallavanti v. Armour & Co., 260 Mass. 417, 419-20, 157 N.E. 527, 528 (1927) The holding in the case doesn’t use the language that the rule in Lev uses when citing Vallavanti as where “authorized time and space limits” came from. The holding in Vallavanti merely stated, “There was no ostensible authority to use the defendant's runabout after hours and for his own pleasure.” Id. at 419-20. After hours is the operative phrase which will be the focal point of our analysis. The facts of the case in Vallavanti was defendant’s, Pizzeri, work was to stop at 5pm. He had already finished the work that he was employed to do for the day. He was then directed by an agent of his employer, to take a car and drive the agent across town. He then took the same car and drove back home, where he was involved in an accident with the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that Pizzeri was acting within the scope of his employment when driving the car. The judge disagreed and ruled against the …show more content…
Cases such as Mosko and Vilidintsky involve the alleged tortious actions happening well after the normal hours have ended. The rule does include the word “substantially” within it. Which could indicate that actions that happen right after normal hours have ended would fall within the time limits. However, nothing by the courts has made any intimation to that effect however. Also, most of the cases like the present case above involve people driving from or to work when the torts happened. The courts in each of those cases found that the employee was not within the time limits of their
This case comprises the plaintiffs, who file a lawsuit against the defendants for denying them overtime pay, which are an infraction of extra hour’s provisions and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standard Act. These non-exempted employees worked 59.33 hours per week with 19.33 additional hours being overtime hours. Moreover, the plaintiffs unpaid hours combined totaled 9,483 in a permissible retro. The claimant’s claim was asserted and bestowed $12, 207,880.84 plus attorney’s fees of, $119.843.75.
Keller claims to have unlocked doors, turning on lights, turning on the air compressor, reviewing employee schedules, and distributing fabric to other workstations. The district court did not hear from the plaintiff’s sister and co-worker. She stated that her sister didn’t work before the start of the shift. The district court found that Kellar’s pre-shift activities were non-compensable preliminary activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act of
The McIntyre vs. Balentine is one of the landmark cases in the United States because of its contribution to the adoption of a system of modified comparative fault in Tennessee. Based on this system, a plaintiff may receive compensation for damages where his/her fault is less than the defendant’s fault. Notably, the recovery of damages by the plaintiff is lessened to reflect his/her extent of fault. In situations involving several tortfeasors, a plaintiff’s recovery of damages is valid so long as his/her fault is less than the total fault of all tortfeasors (“Comparative Fault & The Empty Chair”, n.d.). The lawsuit was determined on the basis of contributory negligence doctrine and comparative negligence. The application of these doctrines as fueled by the need to determine the essential difference in the fault or legal duty between a party or non-party and negligent tortfeasor.
1. What is the difference between Introduction 2. What is the difference between History 3. What is the difference between a's Planning / Preparation 4.
The manager at that McDonald’s restaurant, the defendant, knew Matt had to drive a long way to and from work. Even though this information was known, the manager gave an opportunity to Matt to work a cleaning shift between his regular shifts. My thoughts are that the manager should not have given the opportunity to Matt on the first place as the manager knew Matt was already working from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm on April 4th, 1988 and 5:00 am to 8:21 am on April 5th, 1988 and had to drive 20 minutes to and from work. Adding a cleanup shift from 12:00 am to 5:00 am on April 5th, 1988 made Matt’s working hours excessively long. By the end of his shift, it is obvious that Matt is over worked and not in a condition to drive back. This lack of judgement from the manager eventually lead to the accident and death of Matt, and massive injury to Frederick M. Faverty, the plaintiff. Due to this lack of judgement, I think the verdict against McDonald’s to pay $400,000.00 to the plaintiff is
I will be using three focus questions to help assist and guide the study and structure this investigation. These
This essay will then evaluate the key studies within these two models and explain the strengths and weaknesses of the main theories.
3. Quantitative model ? This is needed to assess the impact of every alternative of the
Identify what resources are already available to answer the question (where can the answer to these questions already be found, what research has already been done?)
deeper into this assessment then I did the other one in order to find the explanation of the
Next, the court believes that the employees were on their work time because work begins when the employee reaches the entrance to their workplace. As said by the Supreme Court in Bountiful Brick Company et al. v. Giles, 276 U.S. 154 (1402) “as a general rule, employment may be said to begin when the employee reaches the entrance of the employer 's premises where the work is to be
4. Question d: Explain the variables you should take into account when assessing page 4
From this case study the analyses are made on the following questions asked. The Questions that are asked are following:
It would also work on the Cross-sectional method of study and the longitudinal method of study. The research scholar would also work to draw a comparison between both the methods of the study.