An employer is held liable for damages caused by an accident involving an employee driving the company car on company business.
Identify the law underlying this decision. a. The doctrine of caveat emptorb.The doctrine of respondent superiorc. Implied warranty of merchantabilityd. The doctrine of caveat lector
The doctrine of respondent superior is a legal doctrine that is adopted when there is an unjustified behaviour which leads to damages, injury or any other legal liability.
This principle holds an employer legally responsible for any wrong action by their employee especially if such actions were done while trying to carry out their work. For example if an employee gets someone injured in the course of their job operation, the employer will be held accountable for such although it was caused or done by their employee. This doctrine is also known as Master-Servant Rule.
The doctrine of respondeat superior is a legal doctrine used that makes an employer, manager, supervisor, or other individual superior to an employee responsible or may be legally liable for the acts of that employee.
This is basically saying that any wrong doing caused by an employee working under the jurisdiction of the employer makes the employer legally liable and responsible for the employee's wrong doings.
For example, if a delivery agent driving company vehicle, causes an accident, the person involved in the accident can choose to bring into lawsuit the company instead of the delivery agent
I want to say the Boston Tea Party. He and the Sons of Liberty were the ones who organized it and that in itself was a protest against the various Acts that were being imposed on the colonies
The Union Pacific and Central Pacific would compete for government generosity, because the line that built the most miles would get the most cash and land. The railroad would then be financed by selling this land.
