Under the common law doctrine ofnbsprespondeat superior an

Question

Under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for injuries or damages caused by an employee carrying out the employer's work. The employee, as an agent for his/her employer, works on the employer's (the principal's) behalf. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and so must assume some responsibility for the agent's actions. For an employer to be held liable for an employee's actions, the employee must be authorized to act for the employer and be partially entrusted with the employer's business. Unlike an independent contractor, the employee has the right to control the time, place, and method of doing the work.

When determining an employer's liability under respondeat superior, the facts of the particular situation are crucial. First, they must show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists. Once this relationship is established, then it must be determined whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time the liability occurred. In making this determination, the law considers:

• the employee's job description or assigned duties;
• the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act;
• the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what he/she was hired to do; and
• whether such a liability could reasonably have been expected.

Deviations may still be considered within the scope of employment if they are minor (a "detour"). For example, such actions as visiting the bathroom, smoking, or getting a cup of coffee are considered within the scope of employment even though they do not directly entail work. When an employee substantially departs from the work routine (a "frolic," an activity solely for the employee's benefit), he or she is not acting within the scope of employment.

Below are the material facts from the Neville v. Adorno (1937) case, in which the Connecticut Supreme Court was asked to review a lower court's decision on whether an employer should be liable for the personal injuries caused by his employee, who drove his employer's dump truck, collided with a car, and injured the car's passenger. At the time this case was decided, Connecticut had a statute in place that presumed an employee's agency. This statute favored the injured party (the plaintiff), who did not have to prove agency; rather, the employer (the defendant) bore the burden of disproving agency.

Imagine the weighted scales you usually see associated with concepts of justice. The plaintiff is the higher scale, while the defendant is the lower. The defendant must present evidence to the court that disproves the employee's agency in order to move the weight from his side of the scale.

Neville v. Adorno (1937) sets out the background information for the case:

With this in mind the following facts are found: Lastrina was regularly employed by Adorno to drive the truck and it was a part of his duty to take care of the truck. It was his duty to buy gasoline and oil and make minor repairs, and it was also his duty, subject to Adorno's directions, to keep general oversight over the truck. Up to the Saturday preceding the accident the truck had been employed on jobs in the neighborhood of Hamburg and Salem. Two leaves of the springs on the truck had, however, become broken and pursuant to Adorno's telephoned instructions on the morning of Monday October 26th, Lastrina drove the truck to Middletown, where both he and Adorno lived, for repairs. After purchasing the necessary materials, Lastrina and his brother started at about 5 p.m. on that day to make the necessary repairs. They did the work in the rear of the Poliner building which is located on Main Street in Middletown. Adorno himself was present during all of the time that the work was in progress. While the work was going on, the two Lastrinas were talking about the fact that a sister of theirs who lived in Ansonia was visiting another sister who lived on William Street about three blocks west of Main Street and Frank Lastrina announced his intention of going to see that sister after the work was completed. Adorno overheard that part of the conversation which related to the fact that the sister was in town but did not hear Lastrina say that he was going to call on her.

Adorno had no garage in Middletown for the parking of the truck and the custom had been to park the truck overnight on the job when it was outside of Middletown and, when it was in Middletown, for Lastrina to park it overnight at his home on College Street east of Main Street either in a driveway or on the street. When the repair work was completed at about 7:30 p.m., Adorno directed Lastrina to go home, put the truck away and be ready to drive it to the job in the morning. The most direct course for Lastrina to take to get to his home would be to drive south on Main Street and turn east on College Street. Instead of driving the truck directly to his home, Lastrina drove it, by just what course it does not appear, to his sister's home on William Street. William Street runs parallel with College Street and is the next street south of College Street. The sister's home to which he went was located in the third block west of Main Street . . . Lastrina stayed at his sister's home until about 10:30 p.m., and proceeded easterly on William Street across Hamlin Street to Broad Street where the collision occurred. It had been his intention to continue on William Street across Broad Street and across Main Street to Water Street, which is the street parallel with Main Street and next east, then north on Water Street to College Street and then west on College to his home. (para. 5-6)

1. Part One 
   1. Identify six facts from the Neville v. Adorno case that will help the defendant disprove that his employee was acting within the scope of employment.
      1. Correctly identifying six facts is worth one point.
      2. You do not need to address whether Lastrina was an employee of Adorno; this has already been established.
   2. Using the doctrine of respondeat superior, argue whether you believe Adorno should or should not be liable for Lastrina's actions.
      1. This part of the assignment should employ a complete analysis of the facts, a careful and logical thought process, and proper spelling and grammar.
      2. Together, your analysis and conclusion are worth two points.