Jump to Navigation

Blog Topic

Topics

"Strict" Products Liability Dead in Arizona?
Abuse and neglect is still rampant in nursing homes
Architect Can Be Liable for Economic Loss Caused by Negligence
Arizona Court of Appeals Holds Crop Dusting is Still an Inherently Dangerous Activity
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Excessive Punitive Damages Unconstitutional
Arizona Legislature "tort reform" statute does not violate State Constitution Separation of Powers
Arizona Preliminary Med Mal Expert Affidavit Requirement Constitutional
Arizona Statute Update
Arizona Supreme Court Announces Guidelines for Notice of Claim in Class Action
Arizona Supreme Court Brings Reason to Notice of Claim Requirements
Arizona does not recognize a first or third party claim for spoilation of evidence
Asserting 5th Amendment in Civil Action Creates Inference of Guilt
Asserting 5th Amendment in Civil Action Creates Inference of Guilt
Attorney Can Be Liable for Malicious Prosecution & Aiding and Abetting
Attorney Malpractice Claim Requires Proving Case Within a Case
Attorneys' Fees Properly Awarded After Voluntary Dismissal
Bar Owner's Responsibility for Drunk Drivers
Bizzare and Dangerous Side Effects of Anti-Nausea Drug
Burns and Burn Injuries
Bush Administration Policies Show Disdain for Consumer Safety - Pre-Emption
Business Interruption Insurance Where Expansion of Business Collapses
Car Dealer's Insurance Policy Doesn't Cover "Customers"
Causation Expert Can Opine on Standard of Care says New Court of Appeals Case
Charter School not State Actor in Employment Matters
Child Crawls through Pet Door Drowns in Pool
Children face greater harm from medical mistakes
Compulsory Arbitration Sanctions in Arizona Mandatory
Confession to Clergyman Priviliged Even if Wife Present
Constitutional Comparisons with Japan
Consumer Safety -- Toys
Court Interpreter Qualifications For Trial Judge To Determine
Court of Appeals Announces Criteria for Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Medical Malpractice Case
Court of Appeals Protects Insurance Company Right to Intervene
Damages
Damron/Morris Agreements May Apply to Non-Insurance Contracts to Indemnify
Damron/Morris Agreements May Apply to Non-Insurance Contracts to Indemnify
Dangerous Diet Aids Pulled From the Shelves
Deadly Pacemaker Wires
Deadly Peanut Butter Kills 8, Sickens Hundreds Nationwide
Deadly Peanut Butter Kills 8, Sickens hundreds Nationwide
Discovery Sanction of Striking Complaint
Doctor/Patient Privilege No Bar to Identity of Patient Witnessing Fall of Plaintiff's Decedent
Drunk Driver's Right to Sue State Limited
Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Tort Claims for Construction Defects
Electoral College Part I: What is it?
Electoral College Part II: Where does the Electoral College come from and why do we still have it?
Employer's Liability for Acts of Employee
Employer's Liability for Acts of Employee--Part II Scope of Employment
Employer's Responsibility for Acts of Employee Part II
Epilepsy drug causes drop in child?s IQ when taken by pregnant mother
Evidence of Signs Posted After Accident Inadmissible
Evidence of Violation of OSHA Can Help Prove Standard of Care
Failure to Attend Arbitration Grounds for Dismissing Appeal
Failure to Warn and Federal Preemption
Forum Non Conveniens not Applicable Where Product sold in Arizona to Arizona Resident
Half of hospital workers don't wash their hands properly
IME Doctor Can be Liable for Negligent Diagnosis
IME doctor not Liable for "Aiding and Abetting" Insurance Co. in Bad Faith Denial of Workers Comp Claim
Injuries or Death on Someone Else's Property--What is an Invitee?
Insurance Bad Faith
Interest on Judgment Against State
Knowing the signs of stroke can save your life
LED Lights Safer for Bike Riders and Pedestrians
Lawsuits Against Lawyers for Negligence in the Representation on the Rise
Medical Malpractice
Medical Malpractice Statute Requiring Affidavit Constitutional
Medical Negligence--Informed Consent
Medical Negligence--The Standard of Care
Negligence--failure to use reasonable care
New 9th Circuit Case--Tribal Immunity bars dram shop & negligence claims
New Arizona Case - Expert Affidavit
New Arizona Case - Expert Witness Qualification
New Arizona Case - Governmental Immunity
New Arizona Case - Insurance Reservation of Rights
New Arizona Case - Notice of Claim
New Arizona Case - Notice of Claim
New Arizona Case - Pleadings
New Arizona Case - Statute of Frauds
New Arizona Case - Taxable Costs
New Arizona Case Decides Timliness of Request for Fees and Rule 11 Sanctions
New Arizona Case: Indemnity Agreement Raises Fact Questions
New Arizona Case: Liability Limitation in Contract Upheld
New Arizona Case: Punitive Damages Survive Death/ Loss Enjoyment of Life Damages Do Not Survive Death
New Arizona Supreme Court Case Explains How Class Representatives Comply with Notice of Claim Statute
New Court of Appeals Case on NonParty at Fault Designations, Liquidated Damages and Rule 68 Sanctions
New Court of Appeals Decision Holds Summary Judgment is not a Discovery Sanction
No Right to Appeal Denial of Motion for New Trial Based Upon Granting of Partial Summary Judgment
No Right to Second Notice of Change of Judge After Case Consolidation
Nonparty not Boundby Protective Order
Notice of Claim--Factual Support for Damage Amount Minimal
Notice of Claim?Factual Support for Damages and Negligent Failure to Identify Dead Body
Offer of Underinsured Motorist Coverage Should be in Spanish
Our Results
Patients Injured by Az Dept of Health and its Agencies Can Sue
Pet is Personal Property so no Emmotional Distress Damages for Pet's Death
Pool Filters Can Explode and Maim and Kill
Private Arbitration Rules Strictly Enforced
Products Liability
Qualified Immunity from Defamation Claim when Reporting Medical Misconduct
Records of Dangerous Fire Causing TV One Step Closer to Release
School Board Must be Served with Notice of Claim
Scope of Discovery of Expert Bias
Seat Belt Use Key in Auto Products Liability Case in Arizona
Sedona Sweat Lodge Tragedy
Sexual Assualt Case Settles for $850,000-University Must Revamp Rules
Social Networking: Be Careful What You Share
Spinal Cord Injury
State Tort Claims Not Preempted by Manufacturer's Voluntary Product Replacement
State Tort Claims Not Preempted for Failure to Warn Regarding Generic Drug
State of Arizona can Assert Lien Rights for Medical Expenses Paid State Employee against Tort Recovery
Statute of Limitations on Legal Malpractice in Handling Bankruptcy Action
Steroids and our Youth--Can Coach be Liable?
Summary Judgment is not a Discovery Sanction
Supreme Court Rules on "Reverse Discrimination."
Supreme Court Heightens Standard in Fear of Cancer Claims
Supreme Court Rules that Strip Search of 13-year-old Student was Unconstitutional
Supreme Court's Decision a Stunning Blow for Partisan Judicial Elections
Tardy Filing of Cost Bond Does Not Destroy Superior Court Jurisdiction of Appeal from Mandatory Arbitration
The ?Eggshell Rule? In Negligence Actions
Thousands of Nursing Homes Flunk Medicare Rating Test
TopicHealthcare Reform 101: What is it Exactly that Capitol Hill is Trying to Change About Our Healthcare System?
Tort Damages Allowed Where no Personal Injury or Personal Property Damage
Trial Court May Set Time Limits on Witness Examination
Tucson Cell Tower Worker Falls 65 Feet and Dies -- Who Is Responsible?
U.S. Supreme Court Ok?s Photo ID Law to Vote
United States Supreme Court Holds State Tort Claim for Failure to Warn not Preempted
Vick's Vapo Rub May Cause Breathing Problems in Toddlers
What is a Wrongful Death Action and Who can Bring It?
What to Do if You are in an Auto Accident
What to do if You are Involved in an Auto Accident--Part II Injuries
When Supersedeas Bond May be Less than Judgment
Worker's Comp Bad Faith Action Includes Traditional Tort Damages
eBay Seller in Michigan Safe from Lawsuit in Arizona

Employer's Liability for Acts of Employee--Part II Scope of Employment

Employers are not always responsible for the actions of their employees, and it depends on whether the employee’s misconduct occurred within the scope of his or her employment. Going along with the rational discussed in part 1, an employer should be responsible for the risks they expose the public to when they make decisions that will benefit their business, and should therefore be responsible for the actions of their employees when in fact the employee is acting within the scope—or on behalf—of that business. However, an employer should not be responsible for the actions of their employees outside of the employment, because allowing for this would create unlimited liability for employers and discourage anyone from running a business.

For example, let’s say that during the weekend, while an employee working for a grocery store is off work, the employee goes to a bar and smashes a beer bottle over another person’s head. It would be unreasonable to hold the grocery store responsible for the misconduct of their employee, because the misconduct occurred at a time and place completely unrelated to the store’s line of work. In other words, at the time the misconduct occurred, the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment or on behalf of the grocery store.

On the other hand, let’s say the grocery store asks the employee to go to a bar and handout advertisements to the bar patrons and the employee ends up smashing a beer bottle over another person’s head. In this case, the grocery store would be responsible—and may even have to pay punitive damages—for the misconduct of their employee because the employee was acting within the scope of his employment working on behalf and for the benefit of the grocery store.

However, the line of whether an employee was acting within or outside the scope of employment is not always that easy to distinguish. For example, what if an employee negligently gets into an accident going to or coming from their work? What if—while an employee is running an errand for an employer—the employee takes a personal detour from their main assignment and, during the detour, acts wrongfully then? In these kinds of situations it can get kind of tricky, but legal rules have been established to try and sort it out.

Typically, employers won’t be responsible for misconduct that occurs when their employees are coming to or leaving from work; this is known as the “going and coming rule.” The only exception to this is if, while going and coming from work, the employee is providing a special or unique benefit for the employer during the commute. For example, some employers reimburse employees for the cost of gas in order to encourage employees with long commutes to work for the employer. Since the employer is paying for transportation and receiving a benefit they maybe liable for the misconduct that occurs during those commutes. Likewise, a lot of employers ask their employees to bring or take home company equipment; in this situation, the employer will also likely be liable for any misconduct that occurs during the commute since the employee is providing the employer with a special benefit. Similarly, an employee’s personal detour—legally termed a “frolicking detour”—is usually outside the scope of the employee’s employment unless, again, the detour itself is providing a unique or special benefit to the employer.

 

If you or a loved one has been seriously injured by someone  you believe was acting in the course of his or her employment and you would like to pursue a claim against them, contact us.