Question

Colossal Company subsidiary Carz Bazaar, a new and used car dealership, hired Charles Wilson to perform various duties, such as cleaning and gassing vehicles, moving vehicles from one lot to another, and maintaining the showroom and vehicle lots. In this position, Wilson had access to keys to the vehicles through a key-control procedure. Under this procedure, an attendant keeps the keys in a control shack. When any employee wants to move a company vehicle, the attendant inputs information into a template request form. The information includes the date, time, stock number of the vehicle, name of the employee checking out the vehicle, and the destination of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle might be taken to a body shop for repairs, to a gas station, or to a company lot at a different location. Every time an employee checks out a vehicle, the reason must be for company business use. It is not necessary to put the expected return time on the form unless a vehicle was expected to be gone for a long time. Once the attendant has completed the form, she gives the keys to the employee who has requested them. When the vehicle is returned, the attendant indicates in the log that the vehicle was returned and replaces the keys. Sometimes vehicles are gone for more than one day. Some vehicles may be removed permanently if they are sold from another lot. In these cases, the managers of the other lots call to let the attendant know that the vehicle will not be coming back. Sometimes employees drive cars back and leave the keys with other employees to return to the attendant. This practice was acceptable to the dealership. One day when Gina Mitchell was the attendant in charge, Wilson asked her if he could use a car for 30 minutes on his lunch break to go to his mother's house. The attendant told him it was okay as long as he brought it back because, otherwise, she could get in trouble. Since Wilson only wanted the car for 30 minutes and she trusted him, she did not make any entry about this trip on the computer. Wilson took the car and left. On his way back to the dealership, Wilson rear-ended a car stopped at a stop light, causing injuries to the driver and a passenger. Wilson told a police officer at the scene of the accident that he was on a lunch break from his job and that he had permission to drive the car, but his boss was not aware he had the car. The injured driver and passenger sued Carz Bazaar on the grounds that it was responsible for the injuries caused by Wilson.

• Please divide your analysis into two parts:
Part I: Arguments for the Plaintiffs
Part II: Arguments for the Defendant.


What are the arguments in favor of the plaintiffs (the accident victims)?

Answer 1

The plaintiffs' main arguments likely revolve around vicarious liability and the company's negligence in enforcing its vehicle use policy. Conversely, the defendant, Carz Bazaar, could argue Wilson's use of the vehicle was personal and unauthorized, and thus not within employment scope.

Step-by-step explanation:

Part I: Arguments for the Plaintiffs

The primary argument in favor of the plaintiffs—that is, the accident victims—against Carz Bazaar is centered on the legal doctrine of vicarious liability. Under this doctrine, an employer can be held responsible for the actions of its employees if those actions were carried out within the scope of employment. In this case, Charles Wilson had access to the cars as a part of his job duties, and there was an established procedure for the use of company vehicles. Despite the unofficial nature of the use—going to his mother's house during a lunch break—the fact that he was given permission by an attendant, Gina Mitchell, and that Carz Bazaar had a lax policy regarding the return of keys, the plaintiffs might argue that Wilson's use was implicitly within the scope of his employment. Additionally, the lack of strict enforcement of the key-control procedure by Carz Bazaar could be perceived as tacit approval of personal use of vehicles, further implicating the company in responsibility for the accident.

Another argument might be based on the company's negligence in training and supervising employees, particularly regarding the use of company property and adherence to key-control procedures. Since the attendant did not complete the template request form as required, this could be seen as a failure on the company's part to ensure proper procedures were followed, which ultimately led to the accident. The plaintiffs could argue that Carz Bazaar's oversight and failings in enforcing its policies contributed to the conditions that made the accident possible.
Part II: Arguments for the Defendant

The defendant, Carz Bazaar, has several potential defenses against the claims of the plaintiffs. The company could argue that Wilson's use of the vehicle was not within the scope of his employment since he was on a lunch break and the intended use—to visit his mother's house—was personal in nature and not for company business. The fact that there was no entry made about the trip in the company's log could serve to bolster the argument that this was outside of his employment duties.

Additionally, Carz Bazaar could present the argument that Wilson acted against company policy, which clearly states that vehicles must only be used for company business. Since there was no record created for the trip, the company could argue that it did not authorize nor was aware of Wilson's actions, therefore cannot be held responsible for his misconduct. Carz Bazaar might also emphasize that the trust placed in Wilson by the attendant was a result of individual discretion and not reflective of the company's stance on vehicle use.