Sally agrees to roof a house for Bob. After doing his research, Bob chooses Sally based on her great reputation for being consci
entious and doing good work. Bob knows little about roofing and stays away from all the noise involved. Sally provides her own tools for herself and other workers, sets her own schedule, and charges a flat rate of $10,000 to be paid when the job is completed. Sally hires Trudy, Glen, and Fred to help with the roofing. She pays them an hourly rate, supervises their work, provides them with tools and materials, and sets their schedules. Curious about what is going on there, Bob's friend Spencer walks by the house while the roofing is being done. Glen absentmindedly throws some old shingles off the roof and hits Spencer in the head, resulting in him going to the local emergency room and receiving a couple of stitches in his scalp. Spencer decides to sue all the roofers, Bob, and Sally for his hospital expenses and for pain and suffering. Assuming Glen was negligent, which of the following is the most likely result in a lawsuit against Sally brought by Spencer? a. Spencer will win because Glen was acting within the scope of his employment; therefore, Sally is liable for his negligence.
b. Spencer will lose because Glen was not acting within the scope of his employment; therefore, Sally is not liable for his negligence.
c. Spencer will win because regardless of whether Glen was acting within the scope of his employment, Sally is liable for his negligence.
d. Spencer will lose because regardless of whether Glen was acting within the scope of his employment, Sally has no liability. Spencer and Sally will split the damages equally.
c. Spencer will win because regardless of whether Glen was acting within the scope of his employment, Sally is liable for his negligence.
Explanation:
Spencer will win because regardless of whether Glen was acting within the scope of his employment, Sally is liable for his negligence. Sally is obligated for his carelessness. Since Sally employed Glen and the obligation of any carelessness turns into Sally's inevitably.
The argument for the company would be based on the fact that, she could have had a defective tooth which only broke while eating the Katydids candies.<em> Most times, the warranty offered in food is with regards to the food being expired, unwholesome for eating due to foreign materials inside etc.</em>
<em>Her filing for breach of warranty over her defective tooth is uncalled for.</em>
Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
