1. What theory of liability could Mr. Melnick use to try to claim damages for his dog?
a. Respondeat superior makes principals liable for the criminal acts of their employees acting within the scope of employment.
b. Respondeat superior makes principals liable for torts of their agents at all times.
c. Strict liability makes principals liable for all acts of their agents.
d. Respondeat superior makes principals liable for the torts of agents acting within the scope of employment.
2. If one of Oscar’s trucks did run over Mr. Melnick’s dog, is Oscar (or his store) likely liable for the damages?
a. Yes, if the driver was acting within the scope of his employment when he ran over the dog.
b. Yes, if the driver was on a frolic from his normal employment duties.
c. No, if the employee was on a detour from his normal employment duties.
d. All of these.
3. Assume a court determined the driver was on a detour from his regular duties and was negligent when he ran over Mr. Melnick’s dog. Who would be liable to Melnick?
a. Oscar (or his store) only.
b. The driver only.
c. Both Oscar (or his store) and the driver.
d. Neither Oscar (or his store) nor the driver.
4. Would Oscar be liable for Melnick’s damages since he did not specifically tell Vinny that he could drive the truck to the hospital?
a. Yes, since it happened in Oscar’s truck.
b. No, because it was an emergency.
c. Yes, because of the emergency Vinny would have implied authority to drive the truck to the hospital.
d. No, Vinny did not have express authority to drive the truck in the area.
4. Assume that Oscar says he would pay for Melnick’s dog, even if he was not legally required to do so, because he thinks the driver did the right thing by driving the van to the hospital. This decision would make Oscar liable because of:
a. ratification.
b. express authority.
c. implied authority.
d. implied ratification.