Final answer:
Cindy can potentially be held liable for the damage to Ralph's bumper even though she never gave Melinda authority to stop for a soda. The legal principle of respondeat superior and the theory of negligent entrustment may support a claim of liability. Ralph should consider consulting with a lawyer for further advice.
Step-by-step explanation:
In this case, Cindy can potentially be held liable for the damage to Ralph's bumper even though she never gave Melinda authority to stop for a soda. This is because Melinda was acting within the scope of her employment when she was picking up gemstones for the jewelry store. Under the legal principle of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of their employee committed in the course of employment. Since Melinda's act of stopping for a soda was a minor deviation from her main task, it can be argued that it falls within the scope of her employment.
Additionally, even if Melinda's act is considered a major deviation, there might still be a possible argument for liability based on the theory of negligent entrustment. Negligent entrustment occurs when someone allows another person, who is incompetent or unfit, to use their property and that person causes harm to a third party. In this case, Cindy allowed Melinda, who did not have insurance, to drive her vehicle, which resulted in the accident.
Ultimately, the specific circumstances and the laws of the jurisdiction where the incident occurred would determine whether Cindy can be held liable. Ralph should consult with a lawyer to evaluate his legal options.