77.7k views
25 votes
Melinda, who works in a jewelry store owned by Cindy, was picking up some gem stones for use in the store. On the way back to the jewelry store, she went through a drive-through fast food restaurant to get a soda. While in line, she negligently bumped the vehicle in front of her which was owned by Ralph. Melinda did not have insurance. Ralph asked Cindy to pay for the damage to his bumper. Cindy refused on the basis that she never gave Melinda authority to stop for a soda. Should Cindy be held liable

2 Answers

5 votes

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.

User Timar Ivo Batis
by
6.7k points
9 votes
Yes she should be held liable
User Nkoren
by
6.2k points