• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Agency Relationships in Tennessee TaxicabCompanies: Who Carries Liability?
Christina Choe, Jerry Lu, Daniel McCoy, Erica SwallowProfessor CalderonLaw, Business and SocietyApril 24, 2009
 
Introduction
In
Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., Inc.
, Robert J. Mosley, a driver for Checker Cab, began work at about 5:30 a.m. and reported “off-duty” by radio at approximately 9:20 p.m.Shortly after reporting “off-duty,” while en route home, Mosley’s high speed attracted theattention of City of Lakewood police officers and a high speed chase ensued. The chase ended atabout 10:05 p.m. when Mosley collided with a vehicle operated by Michael C. Gleaves. Gleavessustained serious injuries.
1
 Shortly thereafter, Gleaves brought action against Checker Cab on the grounds thatChecker Cab was liable for Mosley’s actions under the doctrine of 
respondeat superior 
(Latin:“Let the master answer.”), which states that the employer is responsible for the actions of hisemployees, when performed within the scope of employment. Gleaves sought to prove thatChecker was negligent in its hiring, supervision and licensing of Mosley, a manic-depressivewith a history of violent behavior.The above-mentioned case was litigated in trial court, appealed to the Court of Appeals,and appealed, yet again, to the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The main issue of the proceedingswas whether vicarious liability should be held applicable to Checker Cab for the tortious actcommitted by driver, Robert Mosley. Under the doctrine of 
respondeat superior 
, an agent’semployer can be vicariously liable for the tortious actions of the agent that occur within the
 scope of employment 
. This doctrine stems from the reasoning that since an agent acts in the placeof his or her principal, the principal should therefore be held responsible for those actions.Essentially, vicarious liability can be viewed as an application of the common law principle,
qui facit per alium facit per se
, “one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests”
1
Gleaves v. Checker Cab Transit Corp., Inc.
 
 ,
15 S.W.3d 799 (Tenn. Supr. 2000). In this 2000 case, the SupremeCourt of Tennessee reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision thatChecker was vicariously liable for Mosley’s negligent actions under the Nashville Metro Code.
1
 
(Legal). Since an employer can control and dictate what its employee does, the employer-employee relationship is comparable to a master-servant relationship. Applying the doctrine of 
respondeat superior 
, since the employer (master) acts through its employees (servants), anywrongs that the employee commits is reflected upon the employer, as if the employer hadcommitted the wrong himself, for which he must accept responsibility (Vicarious). Thus, in order to impose vicarious liability upon a principal, an employer-employee relationship must first exist between the principal and the agent. If that relationship fails to exist, vicarious liability cannot beconsidered applicable. Employers of independent contractors are usually not held vicariouslyliable for the tortious actions of the contractors because they do not possess the same degree of control over the contractors as employers do over employees. The fact that the independentcontractor has full control over his work means he has sole responsibility for his actions andconsequently, must bear complete liability.In order to understand vicarious liability, one must first determine whether an agencyrelationship is either an employer-employee relationship or an employer-independent contractor relationship. Numerous factors are considered when distinguishing between an employer-employee relationship versus an employer-independent contractor relationship. Such factorsinclude examining the nature of the work, the degree of skill required for performance, which party provides the necessary tools, whether payment is by time or by job, and whether one partyhas the right to terminate the contract at anytime (Bagley). The main factor, however, thatdetermines whether an employee or independent-contractor relationship exists is the extent of control the employer has over the agent. The main trait of an employee-employer relationship isthat the employer can not only control the results of the work, but also the
details
of how theresults are to be obtained. The employer can dictate how he wants the job done, by what means,using what resources. On the other hand, the hallmark of the employer-independent contractor 
2
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...