Should she be able to recover from Dr. Murray? Explain.
| ♥ 0 |
Virginia and her husband, Ronnie Hulbert, were involved in an accident in Mobile County when their automobile collided with another automobile driven by Dr. Murray’s nanny. The nanny’s regular duties of employment included housekeeping, supervising the children, and taking the children places that they needed to go. At the time of the collision, the nanny was driving her own car and was following Dr. Murray and her family to Florida from Louisiana to accompany Dr. Murray’s family on their vacation. One of Dr. Murray’s daughters was in the automobile driven by the nanny. Virginia Hulbert sued Dr. Murray under the doctrine of respondeat superior, alleging that the nanny was acting within the scope of her employment when the automobile accident occurred. Should she be able to recover from Dr. Murray? Explain. |
Explanation
First, Individual H gave their spouse an affidavit that claimed what Individual M and the nanny said immediately after the crash; the nanny was heading to the beach with Individual M's family to help Individual M take care of the children and to fulfill the task that the nanny was hired to perform.
Second, it is uncontested that at the time of the crash, one of Individual M's children was a passenger in the car with the nanny.Third, it is uncontested that during the week spent at the pool, the nanny was to earn their daily pay.
Fourth, even though the nanny was driving their own car, Individual M had to arrange for the lodgings, which were to be shared by the nanny on the island.
Although Individual M argues that their child drove with the nanny for personal purposes and that the pay earned by the nanny was holiday pay, these points merely stress that there is a legitimate question of material truth as to whether the nanny behaved for personal reasons or for work reasons at the time of the crash.This is the basis of whether the nanny may recover the amount.
An act falls beyond the definition of an employee's job if the act is performed as part of the duties for which the employee was recruited or if the act provides the employer with a benefit.
Verified Answer
The applicant must establish, by substantial proof, that the act of the employee was beyond the reach or course of the employment of the employee. The act of the employee was to get benefit from Company T's employer as per the principle of responsdeat superior.
An act falls beyond the definition of work of an employee, if the act is committed as part of the duties that the employee was employed to do or if the act provides the employer a profit.
