Business Law Essay

Legal System and TortsIssueIs Universals patty and grille creditworthy for the shot caused by its employee , AmyRuleThe Universals Bar and grill conk is not liable to Jennifer at all . yet the employer buns choose to pay for the get downs incurred by Jennifer and make Amy pay the sum when she already had resources or silvern . Such arrangement can be do separately between Amy and The Universals Bar and grille only and cannot be cut down by the Court as there is no champion judice basis to do such p AnalysisIn legal work , there is a principle that dictates the obligation of the employer to his employee . This is referred as Respondeat well-made which implies that superiors or employers are responsible for the actions done by their employees , agents , or subordinates during their assigned duties (Legal Explanations .com , 2008 . In other words , the employers can be legally held responsible for the actions of their employees . However , there is an riddance to this accommodate . The employer is liable or responsible only when the employee s negligence happened in the workplace and in relation to or magic objet dart carrying egress the tasked assigned to him or her . When the action causing financial obligation on the employee was done independent from the assigned task or because of personalised reason , the employer cannot be held responsible . In this fact Jennifer unintentionally broke her nose and spent 9 ,000 for her surgical process as an effect of Amy s flinging of plate which was targeted to John . The accident happened fleck Amy was on duty . However , Amy s action was not affiliated with her hypothesize as a waitress but sort of it was out(p) of see red she had on her boyfriend , John . The field of Amy is an caseful of the exception to the rule of Respondeat Supe rior . Thus , Universals Bar and Grill canno! t be responsible for Amy s act as it was done outdoor(a) Amy s responsibility as waitress .

The action of Amy is attributable to her exasperation on her boyfriend , John . Such is not a responsible or a related act to be a waitress . Hence , the employer has no legal obligation at all to Amy . In fact , Universals Bar and Grill can even fine Amy for the broken plates and other things that may have been broken because of her act . The employer can in add-on discern disciplinary action against AmyConclusionIn business , the law makes the employers responsible for their employees . This is base on the principle of Respondeat Superior . In sum , it is found on fairness as the employer is profiting at the expense of the employees . It is also unavoidable that employees can encounter accidents or throwaway(prenominal) events while carrying out their tasks or duties . In not to loss the employees , the employer can be legally held responsible for the act of their employees . However , an exception to the rule is that the employer cannot be held liable for actions made by employees not related to their duties or responsibilities . If the employee...If you want to get a to the full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper