Cases For Week 10

1. Example
Contractor entered into a K with a property management company to renovate an apartment complex. The K
stated that “the legal owner of the apartment is responsible for payment, not the property management
company, who is an agent of the apartment” A?er the work was performed, the apartment foreclosed and was
taken over by the bank. Contractor sued the property management company for payment. Court found that the
owner, not the property manager, is responsible for payment.

2. Agency & Respondeat Superior : The Grocery Store & Dog Case
Oscar owns a grocery store. He has a truck with the store’s logo that picks up goods and brings them to the
grocery store. Vinny, the driver of this truck, runs over Melnick’s dog by accident. Eventually, Melnick’s dog Susie
dies during surgery. Melnick demands that Oscar pay for Susie’s medical bills. Oscar denies responsibility, saying
that he had nothing to do with the accident. Moreover, the accident happened outside the route that Vinny
drives on for the grocery store business. Oscar argues he never gave Vinny permission to use the truck to go off
the normal business course. Vinny explains that before leaving to make a delivery for the grocery store, a
customer at the store started to go into labor at the store. Vinny rushed her to the hospital first, which is why he
was in a town he normally would not be in for business.
- IRAC
The issue is whether Oscar is vicariously liable to the Vinny’s accident with Melnick’s dog when Vinny was
working for Oscar’s business under the rule of vicarious liability.
According to the actual authority, it is the agent’s power or responsibility expressly or impliedly communicated
by the principal to the agent. Express actual authority includes the instrucNons and direcNons from the principal,
while implied actual authority is the agent’s ability to do whatever is reasonable to assume that the principal
wanted the agent to do to carry out his or her express actual authority. And according to the vicarious liability, it
must be under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Also there should be a right to control of employer. If three
condiNons are saNsfied, employee is under the right to control of employer. First condiNon is whether employer
can control the employee’s work. Second condiNon is the way how person is paid. Last condiNon is the term of
employment.
In this case, the result can be different according to the existence of the implied actual authority. If the store
knew about the emergency situaNon and also knew the road where Vinny was driving before the accident, there
might be the implied actual authority but if they didn’t knew about that, there might not be the implied actual
authority.
Therefore, if we can establish that Vinny was impliedly authorized to drive in that area, then the doctrine of
respondeat superior would apply.

4. Examples
Paul, a plumber, needed a certain wrench to complete a job. He asked Rand, his employee, to buy one at a local
hardware store. Finding the store closed, Rand broke into it and stole the wrench. Is Paul liable for Rand’s crime?
A : He is not reliable, He doesn’t have right to control the act of Rand. Rand did unauthorized act.
ABC Motor Lines held a company party at a restaurant and used one of its buses to transport some employees
to the party. The bus driver was speeding and hit a taxi, injuring its passengers. Is ABC liable for the injuries?
A : ABC is liable under the respondeat superior doctrine.

5. Lasseigne v Post 38
Jason Lasseigne, a LiXle League baseball player, was seriously injured at a pracNce session when he was struck
on the head by a poorly thrown baseball from a team member, Todd Landry. The league was organized by
American Legion Post 38. Claude Cassel and Billy Johnson were the volunteer coaches of the pracNce session.
The Lasseignes sued Post 38, claiming that Post 38 was vicariously liable for the harm. Post 38 contended that it
had no right to control the work of the volunteer coaches or the manner in which pracNces were conducted and
as a result should not be held vicariously liable for the acNons of the coaches. Decide.
- IRAC
The issue is whether Post 38 was vicariously liable for the injury of Jason Lasseigne when he was damaged at a
pracNce session that Post 38’s volunteer coaches were working under the rule of vicarious liability.
According to the vicarious liability, it must be under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Also there should be
a right to control of employer. If three condiNons are saNsfied, employee is under the right to control of employer.
First condiNon is whether employer can control the employee’s work. Second condiNon is the way how person
is paid. Last condiNon is the term of employment.
In this case, Billy Johnson & Claude Cassel were the volunteer coaches of the pracNce session. If they are the
employees of Post 38, Post 38 will have vicarious liability. But two coaches are not employee. Because they didn’t
get paid from Post 38. So they don’t have a right to control both of them.
Therefore, Post 38 don’t have a vicarious liability to Jason Lasseigne.

6. Rubin v Yellow Cap Co.

Neal Rubin, while driving his car in Chicago, accidentally blocked the path of a Yellow Cab Co. taxi driven by
Robert Ball, causing the taxi to swerve and hit Rubin’s car. Angered by Rubin’s driving, Ball got out of his cab and
hit Rubin on the head and shoulders with a metal pipe. Rubin sued Yellow Cab Co. for the damages caused by
this beaNng, contending that the employer was vicariously liable for the beaNng under the doctrine of
respondeat superior because the beaNng occurred in furtherance of the employer’s business, which was to
obtain fares without delay. The company argued that Ball’s beaNng of Rubin was not an act undertaken to further
the employer’s business. Is the employer liable under respondeat superior?
- IRAC
The issue is whether Yellow Cap Co. is vicariously liable for the damages caused by beaNng of Ball who is working
for Yellow Cap Co. under the vicarious liability.
According to the vicarious liability, it must be under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Also there should be
a right to control of employer. If three condiNons are saNsfied, employee is under the right to control of employer.
First condiNon is whether employer can control the employee’s work. Second condiNon is the way how person
is paid. Last condiNon is the term of employment.
In this case, Ball is an employee of Yellow Cap Co. But Ball didn’t act within the course of his employment when
he got out of his cab and beat Rubin over the head with a pipe. It is not an employer-created risk or a risk inherent
in the job of taxi driver will undertake to aXack another motorist. The aXack was a deviaNon from the conduct
generally associated with driving a cab
Therefore, Yellow Cap Co. didn’t have a vicarious liability.

7. Bob v Dr. Tooth

Bob visited his denNst, Dr. Tooth, for this annual cleaning. The cleaning was a rouNne procedure performed by a
dental hygienist, Carol, who is employed by Dr. Tooth. Carol is trained as a hygienist and is licensed by the Korean
government. Dr. Tooth sets the prices for all services, including cleanings by Carol. AddiNonally, he employs staff
to mail bills to paNents and collect payments. Carol is paid a monthly salary by Dr. Tooth, but she generally works
without supervision in the office. She only sees Dr. Tooth’s paNents, but she can schedule cleaning appointments
on her own. AddiNonally, she aXends annual training programs where she learns new cleaning techniques. She
is free to use these new techniques in her work for Dr. Tooth. In the dental industry, it is customary for dental
hygienists to tell paNents the cost of dental procedures. But Dr. Tooth has a policy, which he communicated to
Carol that only he is allowed to tell paNents the costs of dental procedures. The paNents who come to Dr. Tooth
do not know are unaware of Dr. Tooth’s special policy. During Bob’s cleaning, Carol accidentally damaged one of
his teeth. She told Bob this would only cost 50,000 KRW to repair the tooth, instead of the usual fee of 500,000
KRW, since she was the one who damaged it. Bob had the repair work performed by Dr. Tooth, who sent Bob a
bill for 500,000 KRW for the work. What is Bob’s obligaNon to pay Dr. Tooth?
- IRAC
The issue is whether Carol had actual authority as Dr. Tooth’s agent to give the price to Bob for tooth repair
under the rule of the actual authority and apparent authority.
According to the actual authority, it is the agent’s power or responsibility expressly or impliedly communicated
by the principal to the agent. Express actual authority includes the instrucNons and direcNons from the principal,
while implied actual authority is the agent’s ability to do whatever is reasonable to assume that the principal
wanted the agent to do to carry out his or her express actual authority. And according to the apparent authority,
it arises when the principal’s act, past dealings, and communicaNons make 3rd party to reasonably believe that
the agent has authority to act.
In this case, Dr. Tooth didn’t give Carol specific direcNons about telling paNents the costs of dental procedures.
So she didn’t have expressed actual authority. Also, telling the cost of dental procedures is not reasonably
necessary to execute her tasks as a hygienist. Nevertheless, it is customary to tell the cost of service. It does not
allowed in Dr. Tooth’s policy but reasonable 3rd party will believe that Carol has certain authority. That means
Carol has an apparent authority.
Therefore, Bob is obligated to pay just 50,000KRW.
8. Hoops Farm’s Vicarious Liability
Jenny drove a truck, made rouNne deliveries, and took on other driving responsibiliNes for Hoops Farms. She was
responsible for maintaining her own car insurance, paying for any traffic Nckets while operaNng a Hoops vehicle,
and being available for driving assignments, both on weekdays and weekends. Jenny had the right to refuse any
Hoops assignment and drive for other companies. Jenny did this from Nme to Nme. One weekend, Jenny was
asked by Hoops to drive from Seoul to Tong Yong. She agreed. Hoops instructed Jenny to “proceed south through
Jeonju where she was to remain overnight”. She was also specifically told not to eat food while driving the Hoops
truck. The next day, Jenny drove the Hoops truck towards Tong Yong by way of Ulsan, where she met some
friends and family. From Ulsan, she drove directly towards Yeosu. Before arriving at Yeosu, Jenny stopped at a
gas staNon to fill the truck with gasoline and pick up food. To save Nme, Jenny ate while driving, which broke her
concentraNon. She got into an accident, and slammed her truck into another person’s home. This caused serious
damage to the home. Is Hoops vicariously liable for the damage to the home?
- IRAC
The issue is whether Hoops Farm is vicariously liable for the damage caused by Jenny’s accident when she made
several deviaNons during her work under the rule of vicarious liability.
According to the rule of vicarious liability of employer, they may be legally responsible for the unauthorized
torts commiXed by employee while acNng within the scope of employment made by their employee under the
respondeat superior doctrine. If someone is hired as an employee, the employer must have the right to control.
This right exists when an employer has a control over on employee’s work. Also the employee must be paid by
employer and there should be the term of employment.
In this case, Jenny was an employee of Hoops Farm because she was under the control of Hoops. And the
deviaNon she made was minor and these minor deviaNon is called detour. This detour is normally sNll within the
scope of employment.
Therefore, Hoops Farm is vicariously liable for the damage

9. Anne v Fred
Anne owned a shop selling anNque goods. This required her to aXend several aucNons per year. When Anne
went to these aucNons, her best friend Diana ran the shop. Anne instructed Diana that she could sell any of the
items displayed in the shop, as long as Anne got at least seventy-five percent of the price displayed on the item.
Diana was warned that under no circumstances must she purchase any supplies for the shop. While Anne was
away at an aucNon, Diana sold Gilbert an anNque clock for seventy percent of the price displayed. Gilbert bought
the clock believing that Diana owned the shop. Diana also purchased several items of jewelry from a collecNon
shown to her by Fred for 350,000 KRW. Diana believed this deal to be a bargain, one that she felt Anne would
not want to let slip by. On Anne’s return, Anne discovered that the jewelry pieces were very rare and in fact
worth 3,000,000 KRW. Fred, also having heard that the jewelry items were worth much more, returned to the
shop and insisted that the items be returned because he was unaware that Diana did not own the shop, and thus
had no right to buy them. However, Anne refused to give the items back, arguing that the contract was valid.
- IRAC
The issue is whether the contract between Anne and Fred was valid when the agent of Anne, Diana made the
contract with Fred under the rule of the actual authority and raNficaNon.
According to the actual authority, it is the agent’s power or responsibility expressly or impliedly communicated
by the principal to the agent. Express actual authority includes the instrucNons and direcNons from the principal,
while implied actual authority is the agent’s ability to do whatever is reasonable to assume that the principal
wanted the agent to do to carry out his or her express actual authority. And according to the raNficaNon, agent
can try to do certain act that actually not authorized by the principal when the agent work on behalf of principal
while principal knows about the act and has capability of authorizing the act. If it raNfies by the principal, the
contract becomes binding.
In this case, Diana has an expressed actual authority which is given by Anne about operaNng her aucNons. But
there was no expressed actual authority about buying Fred’s jewelry item. Nevertheless, it was for Anne’s best
interest. Her act was based on the interest of the principal, Anne. That means we can apply raNficaNon in this
situaNon. A?er Anne returned, she raNfied the contract that Diana made. So it became the binding contract.
Therefore, the contract between Anne and Fred was binding. So, Anne doesn’t need to take the jewelry back
to Fred.