Business Law Strategic ConsiderationsKennys mother sues Authorit-I for the damage caused by Cartman.Cartman was allegedly conducting business, but he was not expected by Authorit-I to conduct himself in the drunken negligent manner he did resulting in the death of Kenny. Authorit-I would be liable for these actions only if Cartman was acting within the scope of his authority as an employee. In this case, the negligent behavior was definitely not requested or authorized by Authroir-I, furthermore, it was not the kind of behavior that Cartman was hired to perform. Consuming alcohol and acting so idiotic was not within the scope of his employment; therefore Authrorit-I is not liable because Cartmans negligent conduct was committed outside the scope of his employment.
In addition, the motivation test for an intentional tort indicates that Cartmans motivation in committing the intentional negligent act was for personal purposes – to look cool and to show a cool trick and not to benefit Authorit-I. Authroti-I is not liable even though it took place during an alleged business meeting. Cartman did not perform the cool trick as part of his job or any employment related purpose and Authorit-I did not gain any benefit from the negligent action. Cartman should be held personally liable for his own tortuous conduct. Kennys death was the fault of Cartman himself and Authorit-I would not be held liable for Cartmans actions in this case.
Kennys Poor-Mans Bar sues Authorit-I for the damage caused by Cartman.My first thoughts were that Kennys Poor-Mans Bar had a good case against Authorit-I for several reasons. Typically an employer would be held liable for the negligent act of their employee if the employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The damages happened while Cartman was employed with Authroit-I, Cartman was holding his sales meeting with his client, Kyle, at Kennys Poor-Mans Bar which was outside of the Kyles place of business at Kyles request. They were supposedly discussing business when the negligent actions occurred.
Although those facts exist, I dont believe Authrorit-I is liable because even though the scenario is not completely unrelated to Cartmans sale of security equipment to bars, it happened in a location that was not part of the sales negotiation with Kyle. The location of this meeting was not advancing the work for which Cartman was sent to this location to acquire. Cartmans negligent conduct was committed outside the scope of his employment and Authorit-I would not benefit in any way from the scenerio. Cartman decided to go to that bar even though it was not the clients place of business, or where the business transaction should occur. He ordered and consumed pure grain alcohol which also is definitely not an action to
The lawsuit is in response to a motion to dismiss, claiming that the court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ motion for a stay. The law (if any) states that “the state may proceed where the right . . . does not exist.” As we’ve seen, the legislature clearly states that when a law requires the person on his or her side to take a decision on an issue, he or she may take it in a non-binding way to avoid having a significant negative impact on a plaintiff’s position that is not part of his or her employment agreement with the attorney-general. This might include the time the law may allow to delay any final decision that may be filed or taken. The plaintiff can file a petition for summary judgment, but as a judge, it’s probably an appropriate way to do so. Therefore, if it is allowed, I have no problem with granting an order that protects the rights of the person, and is likely to result in substantially the same result as the first. Because this is the right-of-way that most of the other legal precedents allow, I think we’re well on our way to a settlement where the parties are not a burden on the court.
The lawsuit continues by seeking injunctive relief for Defendants Cozy and Cartman. That is what the lawsuit alleges. Here’s what the district court would do if the two parties came to a deal. At the hearing, the parties did not reach a settlement agreement.
Court held at the very end that there is no need for plaintiff to seek injunctive relief from the other parties, and instead the parties must decide to go to trial to determine which defendants are entitled to compensation and that the three defendants are entitled to $250,000. The settlement that this case seeks is in accordance with the standard of fair play that is required of defendants that win contracts with each other.
It would be nice if there was a more complete breakdown of the court’s findings to accompany the lawsuit (or to a conclusion in the plaintiffs’ favor).
You can view the complete filing of this lawsuit at www.dmjudge.vic.gov. In the meantime, you can follow the suit’s progress to the current filing at www.dmjudge.vic.gov.