Answer:
Option B, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.
Explanation:
Scope of employment refers to where an employee was and what actions were being undertaken when the injury took place. If the employee was within the scope of employment, then the employer would likely be held responsible. But, if the employee was outside the scope of employment, then it is harder to prove the employer was negligent.
Within the scope employment means the injury took place; on or near work premises, during business trips, within a company's vehicle, while running an errand for the employer.
Outside the scope employment means the employee was not conducting any official business when the injury took place.
In the case of Francis, although he was on an official errand, he stopped in the middle of delivery route to have lunch with his friends which was not part of his official errand and he got injured while doing so.
Therefore, Francis would normally be considered to be acting: OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.
Answer: No, because she was not within the zone of danger.
Explanation:
Negligent infliction of emotional distress occurs when the defendant must compensate the plaintiff whim is the injured person for the resulting emotional or mental or emotional injury.
In a case whereby the owner brings a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the tenant, then she won't recover because she was not within the zone of danger. The professional movers were the ones in the zone of danger.
Answer:
the answer is innovation contest I think
Answer:
Whats a lawyers favorite suit...
A lawsuit
Explanation:
Answer:
<u>Cash collection budget
</u>
January
Cash sales $50,000
Credit sales :
50% of January credit sales $75,000 ($150,000*50%)
40% of December credit sales $33,600 ($42,000/50%*40%)
10% of November credit sales $23,000 ($23,000/10%*10%)
Total cash collections $181,600