B. population of the region
Answer:
In the understanding of this court case, where the plaintiff (L.M.) filed a lawsuit against Pacheco on sexual abuse, the court ruled that the perpetration of the abhorrent act committed did not have to do with Pacheco´s ´´scope of employment´´ as the act happened outside the boundaries of the church and not within his working hours. However, if the plaintiff were to argue that in fact this conduct happened within the scope of employment, she would have to explain and convince that Pacheco was indeed responsible as it is a Pastor's duty and responsibility to guide and counsel at all hours, and not just limited to his church´s hours. A pastor is a figure of responsibility as a visible head for a community, not to mention that in some churches, a pastor is also a legal representative.
Employers should be held liable for the acts of their employees whenever there is a failure to supervise employees or some kind of misdemeanor is perpetrated within the employer´s work facilities or influential premises. These points of view however, are not stated by a lawyer/judicially, these are my personal observations after having researched on the case.
<span>The first section of the Occupational Description appearing in the Occupational Outlook Handbook is generally title Nature of Work. This is a book published by the United States Department of Labor and it is used to offer a variety of information on hundreds of different occupations, it even goes into detail to cover the work environment and pay rate.</span>
Answer:
Vicarious liability
Explanation:
Liability depends not on an individual's own misconduct but on that person's relationship with the wrongdoer. As per the common law of the United States, a participant of a conspiracy could be considered vicariously liable for the crimes that were committed by his co-conspirators in a case where the acts of the co-conspirators were intentional and performed in order to further the conspiracy's intent.
