English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

A-You were reasonably careful in hiring Frank and had no reason to suspect the danger he posed.Because you weren't negligent,you can't be held liable for Frank's negligence.
B-You can be held liable for Frank's negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
C-You can be held liable for Frank's actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior or vicarious liablity.
D-Because Frank had the accident while acting as an employee,only you as his employer---not Frank personally----can be held liable for negligence.

2006-12-30 07:29:15 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

7 answers

A

2006-12-30 07:30:18 · answer #1 · answered by Henry_Tee 7 · 0 0

The best way to answer multiple choice questions on the bar exam is to first eliminate the two wrong answers. Here, eliminate B and D

B is incorrect - "res ipsa" doctrine does not apply
D is incorrect - individuals are always responsible for their own torts

Now analyze the two remaining. As between A and C

A has to do with a claim for negligent hiring or supervision, regardless of that claim, it is only partially correct as you can still be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, therefore

C is entirely correct

the correct answer is C

2006-12-30 09:46:58 · answer #2 · answered by MBTull 3 · 0 0

If it's negligence, you and Frank can be held liable. He acted as your agent.

2006-12-30 07:33:45 · answer #3 · answered by Nort 6 · 0 0

C - respondeat superior or failure to supervise

2006-12-30 07:33:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A

2006-12-30 07:32:50 · answer #5 · answered by Incognito 6 · 0 0

C

2006-12-30 07:31:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

c)

2006-12-30 07:42:45 · answer #7 · answered by snarkysmug 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers