The Employer Liability Paper
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
The Employer Liability Paper
Employers commonly face dilemmatic situations with their employees. Overcoming such challenges requires companies to set legal and ethical codes of conduct that can guide both the employer and employees. This paper presents a case scenario of Diane and how employers can address it. It will equivocally analyze both the sides of Diane and her employer and how the respondeat superior applies in this case.
- Discuss which facts or ideas presented in the scenario would support the employer being liable for the injuries sustained by Diane and the other driver. Explain your reasoning.
According to the report, the employer was aware of Diane’s medical condition and the warning given by the doctor that she should not drink while taking medication. Having known this, the employer should not have left her to party alone without assigning an aid to keep a close watch on her. Even during the party, Diane was visibly intoxicated, at which point the employer should have stopped her from further drinking and sent her home immediately. Even though some of these things were autonomous decisions on the part of Diane, the employer should have kept a close watch on her given that she was sick. Additionally, we are informed that Diana was visibly intoxicated when she left for home and she was driving herself. The employer should not have allowed her to drive home by herself knowing that she was intoxicated. Besides, she was not in good health condition to drive herself. This is why she needed an aide to help her with all these since she was also single.
- Discuss which facts or ideas presented in the scenario would support the employer not being liable for the injuries sustained by Diane and the other driver. Explain your reasoning.
The employer had set rules to mitigate incidences of intoxication and driving. T.O. Retailers, LLC had experienced the same problem and enacted policies that do not condone excessive drinking and driving, and strictly prohibit any employee from being intoxicated during the holiday party. Additionally, the company has restricted the service of alcohol to any employee who appears to be intoxicated and sends such people home immediately. With all these policies, the company expects employees to comply and therefore, exonerates itself from further non-compliance. Employees, as grown-ups, should understand the essence of these policies and comply with them. Besides, Diane had been refused service by the first server due to intoxication but went ahead to get another drink from a second server and subsequently from a colleague. These scenarios make Diane responsible for herself and the drinking. Because, aside from breaking the company’s policies, she did not abide by her doctor’s instructions that did not allow her to drink while taking the medication.
- Assess whether or not respondeat superior would apply to Diane’s situation. Explain your reasoning.
The respondeat superior doctrine that requires an employer or principal to take legal responsibility for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency, may not apply here (Cornell Law School, 2022). First, Diane has not harmed herself in the line of duty, nor has she injured herself within the workplace or coming out of the workplace. Additionally, drinking during parties and reckless drinking has not been portrayed as habitual behavior of Diane to warrant prior mitigation measures. According to Cornell Law School (2022), the respondeat superior applies:
- When the employee’s social or recreational pursuits on the employer’s premises after hours are endorsed by the express or implied permission of the employer and are conceivable of some benefit to the employer, then the employer is liable for harm resulting from the employee’s actions, and.
- If the employee’s action is common enough for that job that the action could be fairly deemed to be characteristic of the job, then the employer will be liable for harm resulting from the employee’s actions.
Since the scenario does not satisfy these conditions, it does not apply. On the contrary, Diane should be held responsible for going against the company’s policies and doctor’s recommendations.
In summary, Diane seems to be solely responsible for the problem in this case. She went against everything that she is mandated not to do by the company and her doctor. The company is exonerated by the fact that it had put policies to mitigate such incidences. However, the company had an ethical duty to protect Diane being aware that she was drunk and sick.
References
Cornell Law School. (2022). Respondeat Superior. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior