Morison argues that he is not liable for his agent’s negligence because the agent had strayed from his assigned path. Who is correct? Why?
| ♥ 0 |
While crossing a public highway in the city, Joel was struck by a horse-drawn cart driven by Morison’s agent. The agent was traveling between Burton Crescent Mews and Finchley on his employer’s business and was not supposed to go into the city. Apparently, the agent was on a detour to visit a friend when the accident occurred. Joel brought this action against Morison for the injuries sustained as a result of the agent’s negligence. Morison argues that he is not liable for his agent’s negligence because the agent had strayed from his assigned path. Who is correct? Why? |
Explanation
The agent of Individual M crashed into the vehicle of Individual J while on duty underIndividual M. It is true that the agent of Individual M was on the highway to visit a friend in the city. Yet, the accident took place during the time of Individual M's work.
So, under the doctrine of Respondent superior, Individual M is accountable for their actions. On the other hand, if Individual J was hit by the carriage after the time for which Individual J worked for Individual M, then Individual M might not have been responsible.
Verified Answer
Individual J is correct here. The accident happened during the time of the day when the agent was still on duty. Thismeans that the agent was working for Individual M. The agent did not have to go to the city to perform the duty.However,as the agent was clocked in with Individual M, the principal is responsible for the actions of the agent.
On the other hand, Individual M would not have been responsible for the crash if the agent hit the vehicle of Individual J after the time of employment.
