Is the Yellow Cab Company liable? Explain.
Rubin was driving on one of the city’s streets when he inadvertently obstructed the path of a taxicab, causing the cab to come into contact with his vehicle. Angered by Rubin’s sudden blocking of his traffic lane, the taxi driver exited his cab, approached Rubin, and struck him about the head and shoulders with a metal pipe. Rubin filed suit against the cab driver to recover for bodily injuries resulting from the altercation. He also sued the Yellow Cab Company, asserting that the company was vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Is the Yellow Cab Company liable? Explain.
The doctrine of the respondent is not going to be applied to the case since the driver's act of hitting the complainant is completely unrelated to the cab driver. In many occupations, such as waiting tables,coercion is very likely to happen during the work process. In this situation, the assault against the plaintiff is a deviation from the normal cab driving industry behavior. The driver did not follow the corporate aims of Company Y. Furthermore, Company Y does not own the driver's appellant battery.
No, Company Y is not liable because the driver's action is based on personal reasons rather than the company's benefits. According to the doctrine of the respondent, in the course of employment and pursuit of the employer's business, an employer becomes liable for the careless, deliberate, malicious, or illegal acts of its employees.