Thomas Blair, Jr. Explain whether Courtesy is vicariously liable.
Tommy Blair, Sr., was the sole owner and president of Tommy Blair, Inc., d/b/a Courtesy Autoplex. His son, Thomas Blair, Jr., was a management employee who supervised employees within the service department. On September 28, Tommie Lee Patterson entered into an agreement with Courtesy to trade his Camaro for a new GMC Jimmy. At the time of the trade, Patterson owed $12,402.82 on the Camaro. Despite this, he incorrectly informed Courtesy that he owed only $9,500.00 on the car. The transaction occurred at a time when Courtesy could not verify the payoff amount on the loan. Courtesy allowed Patterson to take possession of the Jimmy but did not transfer title. An agreement was also executed providing that (a) Courtesy would credit Patterson if he had overstated his outstanding indebtedness on the Camaro. The next day, Courtesy discovered the amount Patterson actually owed on the Camaro. When notified of this discrepancy, Patterson refused to pay the additional sum and refused to return the Jimmy. Courtesy subsequently tried unsuccessfully to repossess the truck on at least two occasions. On October 4, Thomas Blair, Jr., and another Courtesy employee encountered Patterson, who was driving the Jimmy, on a public road. At a stoplight, Thomas Blair, Jr., exited his car and knocked on the Jimmy’s driver side window, demanding that Patterson get out of the vehicle. When Patterson refused, Thomas Blair, Jr., drew a pistol he was carrying and fired two shots in the front tire and two shots in the rear tire of the Jimmy. Ultimately, the disabled truck was impounded and returned to Courtesy by the police. Thomas Blair, Jr., was convicted of wanton endangerment in the first degree, a felony. Patterson sued Thomas Blair, Jr., and Courtesy, claiming that Courtesy was vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employee, Thomas Blair, Jr. Explain whether Courtesy is vicariously liable.
Probably most notably, there is no proof that Individual C tried to fulfil any personal intent in the act.
It was very clear that Individual C participated in the act to advance the commercial interests of the employer. Eventually, while the crime was criminal, demonstrating that the motivation was a personal one was not so outrageous. The jury thus found that Individual B behaved beyond the framework of jobs.
Clearly, Individual B was working to promote Individual C's commercial interests in threatening Individual P and blowing out the truck's tires.
The behavior, at the very least, was at least incidental to the behavior permitted by courtesy. Here, just as was done by Individual F, Individual B behaved in a way to secure the interest of the boss. Actually, the testimony of Individual B explicitly confirmed this motive.