Question

Wilson was an agent of Noland. Peterson did not know Wilson was Noland's agent; Peterson did not know Wilson was anyone's agent. (Noland did not want anyone except Wilson to know of the agency). Wilson caused Peterson to suffer significant damages. Noland did not breach a duty of care either with respect to hiring or retaining Wilson. Within the time set by the applicable statute of limitations, Peterson sues Noland, seeking compensation for her damages. Peterson cannot show that Wilson owed her a duty of care. Will Peterson prevail?

Answer 1

No Peterson will not prevail.

Step-by-step explanation:

In this scenario as at the time of the injury Peterson did not know that Wilson was an agent of Noland.

Duty of care is the obligation that one has to ensure the safety of another person. For example an employer that has a duty of care to protect his employee.

Noland did not have a duty of care to Wilson, and Wilson in turn did not have a duty of care to Peterson.

So Peterson will not be able to prove a breach of duty of care. She cannot sue Noland for compensation for her damages