John Discussion Post #1

The defendant Carz Bazaar has a strong case that they should not be responsible for the accident of Charles Wilson. The company has a procedure for key-control. Under the procedure, the attendant inputs all necessary information into a template request form and the reason must always be for company use only (University of Maryland Global Campus, 2020). Charles Wilson and Gina Mitchell did not follow those procedures. They have both violated the company’s policy. In this case, Charles Wilson and Gina Mitchell are responsible for the accident. A frolic and detour will be the general defense of Carz Bazaar. A “frolic and detour” is a general defense to vicarious tort liability (University of Maryland Global Campus, 2020). The principal should not be responsible for the tortious acts of the agents when the agents are acting outside the scope of the employer. It is also stated that and employees who is on a frolic or detour is no longer acting for the employer (University of Maryland Global Campus, 2020).

Tiffany Discussion Post #2

After an analysis of the Carz Bazaar case and the arguments for the plaintiffs as well as the defendant, it is my opinion that the defendant, Carz Bazaar, has the stronger defense and is most likely to win the case. The most important piece of evidence in this case is that Wilson acted outside of the scope of employment for Carz Bazaar. He broke company rules and took a company car to run a personal errand. All of the arguments and defenses for the plaintiffs in this case are null if it can be proven that Wilson acted outside of the scope of employment. Duty to indemnify and vicarious liability both have clauses within the defense that state that if the agent acted outside of the scope of employment than the principal (employer) is no longer held liable for the damages that the agent committed through an unintentional tort.

Most importantly, I think that the defendant has the strongest defense under frolic and detour. This defense applies perfectly to the Carz Bazaar incident and really does not leave any room for misinterpretation. The bottom line is that at the time of the accident, Wilson was not an agent acting within the scope of his employment. As a result, Carz Bazaar has a solid legal defense in response to the lawsuit that the plaintiffs are bringing forward and I believe that they would be the winner of the lawsuit. I believe that the plaintiffs would have an easier time suing Charles Wilson directly than pursuing legal action against Carz Bazaar.

Charles Discussion Post #3

In this situation, plaintiff was absolutely right to file a case against Carz Bazaar, who is the employer of Charles Wilson who was involved in an accident while driving the company car. Even though Carz Bazaar might be performing a task with his company car for plaintiff, because they are a third party who request a service from Charles Wilson who is Carz employer, every expenses has to be billed to Charles. Any contract or services agreement was between plaintiff and Charles Wilson, that means it has nothing to do with the employee who has been assign to do the work. I had a similar experience some years ago, I hire a contractors to replace my roof and they sub contractor to another company. The employee of the sub contractor came and damage my property. even though they cause the problem, my lawyer and myself was only dealing with the main contractor i hire, as i have no business with the sub contractors who actual perform the job. so in this case plaintiffs has all the right to fire a case against charles wilson and not Carz

Ashley Discussion Post #4

After thoroughly reviewing the case details for the referenced case, it is my legal judgment that the plaintiff has a strong case to sue and win against Carz Bazaar. Here are key factors in the case that support the plaintiff’s win.

1. Wilson is an employee of the company. Therefore, the employer governs the employee during their work hours. The lunch break can be considered designated company time. And without policies that specifically state that employees are not allowed to drive vehicles for personal errands, Carz Bazaar may not have a defense.

2. Wilson made a request to his supervisor and the supervisor authorized his actions. That supervisor will be viewed as the leader approving the unethical decision. Because the employee had permission to drive the vehicle, it can be seen as instructional and the details of those instructions were very specific. I also see this as a form of implied agency since the request was made and granted. I believe it will be considered “respondeat superior.”

3. The case notes disclosed that sometimes vehicles historically are away from the lot for more than a day. That history further implicates Carz Bazaar as it sets a precedent of its practices which will be used against them. It proves that it is a normal business practice that they can be held liable for.

As I’ve experienced in many positions, this scenario will force Carz Bazaar to tighten up their company leadership model.

Bill Discussion post #5

After considering both sides of this case, it is my opinion that the defendant (Carz Bazaar) has the best chance of winning the case. If you assess the actions of Charles Wilson and Gina Mitchell in this case it could be said they both are the responsible parties. Through the defense called, “Frolic and Detour” it will remove Carz Bazaar from liability for agents actions. Frolic and Detour is defined as employee abandons employers business objectives and pursues personal interests and employee deviates from employers instructions (Agency & Liability, 2020). In this case, Charles and Gina committed both parts of this and essentially acted outside the employer’s interests. Gina’s actions of giving Charles the keys knowing it was prohibited by company policy and Charles taking a company car for a personal errand should open them up to be sued by the plaintiffs. Gina should be fired and Charles should be paying damages to the plaintiffs and to Carz Bazaar for the damages to the company vehicle.

Detmear Discussion post #6

Based on all the facts of the Carz Bazaar case and the arguments of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, the plaintiffs will most likely win the case in court. Carz Bazaar does have good legal arguments; however, the plaintiffs have a much stronger argument. According to Carz Bazaar, Charles was not authorized to operate its vehicle that was involved in the car accident, since he was using the vehicle for personal use, which is against company policy. However, based on the principle of “implied authority”, Charles had belief that Gina had the authority to make an exception to authorize him to use the company’s vehicle for a personal errand. Therefore, the respondeat superior doctrine, deems Carz Bazaar responsible for the damages. Furthermore, Carz Bazaar will also be held responsible based on strict liability (UMGC, n.d., p. 4). According to UMGC (n.d.), “Strict liability subjects an individual for activity that causes harm to another without regard for her intent or the standard of care she shows in carrying out that activity” (p. 4). Although Carz Bazaar will be responsible to pay the damages, Carz Bazaar can still hold both Charles and Gina responsible as well. According to agent law, employees are also responsible for their own actions and have a duty to follow all company policies (UMGC, n.d.). Carz Bazaar could sue both Charles and Gina for compensatory and punitive damages for the torts of conversion of property and negligence (UMGC, n.d.). In addition, the company can also elect to terminate both employees due to their disregard to the company policies.