Question

Ryan is an employee of Millwall Inc., a heavy equipment manufacturer. During company business, Ryan injured a pedestrian while driving one of the company's cars. Millwall Inc. is held liable for the injury caused to the pedestrian by the accident involving Ryan. In this scenario, which of the following doctrines was most likely used to hold Millwall Inc. liable?

1) Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
2) Doctrine of Contributory Negligence
3) Doctrine of Comparative Negligence
4) Doctrine of Assumption of Risk

Answer 1

Millwall Inc. is held liable for their employee's actions under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior, as it holds an employer responsible for the acts of employees performed within the scope of their employment. Other doctrines mentioned relate to different aspects of negligence and were not used in this scenario.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the scenario where Millwall Inc. is held liable for the injury caused by its employee Ryan to a pedestrian, the legal doctrine most likely applied is the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior. This doctrine states that an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment. Therefore, because Ryan was performing company business when the accident occurred, Millwall Inc. would be vicariously liable under Respondeat Superior. In contrast, the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence would apply if the pedestrian was also at fault to some degree for the accident. The Doctrine of Comparative Negligence would come into play if the pedestrian's negligence is measured and compared to Ryan's to determine liability proportionally. Lastly, the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk would be applied if the pedestrian willingly and knowingly encountered a known hazard and thus should bear the consequences of the risk.