Question

Carter, who had been convicted of violent crimes, was hired as an independent contractor to sell vacuum cleaners door-to-door. He assaulted a customer in her home who sued the vacuum cleaner company. You would expect the Texas high court to hold that the company:

a. Was liable for negligence in hiring
b. Was not liable because employers are not liable for acts of independent contractors
c. Was not liable because Carter's actions were in violation of his instructions
d. Was not liable because it had no control over Carter's actions when he was selling
e. None of the other choices

Answer 1

The vacuum cleaner company may be held liable for negligence in hiring based on their knowledge of Carter's violent past, constituting a foreseeable risk. Constitutionally, Sara is entitled to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, Mr. Jones has a right to a jury trial as prescribed by the Seventh Amendment, Carolyn is protected against cruel and unusual punishments by the Eighth Amendment, and Mr. Reynolds is shielded against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.Option A is the correct answer.

Step-by-step explanation:

The vacuum cleaner company could potentially be held liable for negligence in hiring Carter, knowing he had been convicted of violent crimes. This potential liability arises because companies may have a duty to ensure their hires, even independent contractors, do not pose a risk to their clients. If the company was aware of Carter's violent past and it was foreseeable that he could harm someone, the court may find the company liable for negligent hiring practices.

Sara does have the right to an attorney under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees legal counsel to defendants in criminal prosecutions, regardless of the nature of the offense. Mr. Jones also has a right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment in civil cases where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. The Eighth Amendment protects Carolyn from cruel and unusual punishments, such as having her hands cut off for shoplifting. Lastly, under the Fourth Amendment, the ATF cannot search Mr. Reynolds' home or confiscate his rifles without due process or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.