Question

Lynne Meyer, on her way to a business meeting and in a hurry, stopped by a Buy-Mart store for a new pair of nylons to wear to the meeting. There was a long line at one of the checkout counters, but a cashier, Valerie Watts, opened another counter and began loading the cash drawer. Meyer told Watts that she was in a hurry and asked Watts to work faster. Watts, however, only slowed her pace. At this point, Meyer hit Watts. It is not clear from the record whether Meyer hit Watts intentionally or, in an attempt to retrieve the nylons, hit her inadvertently. In response, Watts grabbed Meyer by the hair and hit her repeatedly in the back of the head, while Meyer screamed for help. Management personnel separated the two women and questioned them about the incident. Watts was immediately fired for violating the store's no-fighting policy. Meyer subsequently sued Buy-Mart, alleging that the store was liable for the tort (battery) committed by its employee.

Under what doctrine discussed in this chapter might Buy-Mart be held liable for the tort committed by Watts?
a) Partially disclosed principal b) Unauthorized acts
c) Apparent authority
d) Respondeat superior

Answer 1

Buy-Mart could be held liable for the tort committed by Valerie Watts under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds employers accountable for their employees' actions within the scope of their employment.

Step-by-step explanation:

Buy-Mart could be held liable for the tort committed by its employee, Valerie Watts, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. This legal doctrine holds an employer responsible for the actions of an employee when those actions are carried out within the scope of employment. Even though Watts may have violated the store's no-fighting policy, if her interaction with Lynne Meyer occurred during her normal work duties, the company could be liable for her actions.