IE: Sam found out that Joe was provided confidential company information to a competitor. Sam threated to hurt Joe if Joe didn't tell Sam everything he has told the competitor. Did Sam commit any torts by threatening Joe? Is the company liable for Sam's actions?
2006-09-01 10:53:29 · 4 answers · asked by JILL G 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
idk
2006-09-01 10:54:48 · answer #1 · answered by swimfishy 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A tort is a civil wrong, one where the plaintiff (the injured party) seeks recovery, rather than one punished by the state (criminal).
In the example above, Sam's threats against Joe could fall within several different torts, each of which is defined by state law.
Under tort agency theory, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the acts of an employee (agent), if that employee was acting on orders from the company, or if that employee was acting within the scope of their duties for the company and in the company's best interests.
So, in the example, if Sam was acting under orders from the company, or if Sam was hired by the company to handle security and chose these tortious means to do his job, then yes the company could be vicariously liable.
2006-09-01 17:54:58 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What is this a law school question? The company is only liable if the employee is acting "within the scope" of his employment. It depends on what the defendant's actual job was. I don't know if the threats would be considered assault and I don't know which state you're in so I don't know you're civil torts, but it is also possibly there are criminal offenses as well. I'm so drunk right now!
2006-09-01 18:02:47 · answer #3 · answered by superlawyerdude 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sam's action was tortious, but the company is not liable unless it can be shown that Sam's actions were somehow in conformance to company policy. Obviously, Sam should have presented the information to his superiors for appropriate action.
2006-09-01 17:57:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋