Case Study Flowers Inc

CRITICAL LEGAL THINKING CASE STUDY 2

By: Hazel Grace Medina

FSCJ- Fall 2017
BUL3130
Prof. Bob Allen

CRITICAL LEGAL THINKING CASE STUDY 2 There are many key facts to this case that can have Flowers Inc. held responsible for the caused damages. Employers are liable for their carelessness in managing and hiring employees. There are two basic concepts that underlie employer liability (An Employer's Liability for Employee's Acts, n.d.). First, employee’s actions are reflected on the employer. Second, is the legal systems motivation of meeting the goal of having the victim(s) situation handled. Employers have a better chance of fulfilling goals for paying hospital bills, compensation, and issues and fees that needs to be handled from

Vicarious liability refers to situations where an employer is held responsible for the actions of an employee, provided that the incident occurred during employment (nderstanding what vicarious liability means for employers, 2012). One type of vicarious liability is Respondeat Superior, meaning “let the master answer.” This doctrine holds the employer liable for the fact that Ruth, as an employee, was performing duties for Ron, the supervisor or “master,” at the time of negligence (Vicarious Liability/Respondeat Superior, n.d.). Ron’s decision on choosing Ruth to deliver the flowers gives Jim an ability to claim recovery from Flowers Inc. Supervisors have knowledge of their employees’ capabilities or lack-there-of. Second key fact is Ruth’s carelessness in parking her vehicle that somehow led to harming Jim. Although Ruth had no intentions of causing harm, if it weren’t for her recklessness, the incident would not have happened. Jim can claim recovery from Ruth, in tort law, by her violation of duty of care (What is a "duty of care"?, n.d.). It is when one acts negligently and harms a person that causes suffering, whether physically, economically, or mentally, from their failure of being reasonably