A professional painter and his apprentice, in business as a partnership, were hired to paint a store. Midway through the job the
y ran out of paint, so the painter lent his truck to the apprentice to pick up more. On his way to pick up the paint, the apprentice stopped at a post office along the way to mail a personal letter. On pulling out of the post office parking lot, he negligently ran into a parked car, causing extensive damage. If the car owner brings a negligence action against the painter, will she prevail?
A. No, because the apprentice is an independent contractor.
B. No, because a bailor is not vicariously liable for the torts of his bailee.
C. Yes, because the apprentice's stop at the post office was not a frolic.
D. Yes, because the apprentice was using the painter's truck.
The blame should be placed on the person <em>driving</em> the truck, not the one who <em>owns</em> the truck. Use the process of elimination and you can cross off D. It's not C either because that's simply unreasonable. Not B because no one said anything about bails. It has to be A. Furthermore, it mentioned, "in business as a partnership."
