Factual Scenario
David hires Annabel as a housekeeper. Her main duties are to remain in the house and clean, prepare meals, and do the laundry. One afternoon, Annabelle receives a call from One-Day Drycleaners. David’s suit is ready to be picked up. Annabel decides to go and get the suit in her car. On the way back to David’s home, she runs a red light and hits Julie’s car. The police officer at the scene says that Annabel was intoxicated and that this was the main cause of the accident. Annabel had a few drinks with her lunch. David knew that Annabel had a drinking problem when he hired her and that she is trying to stop drinking.
Julie has filed a lawsuit against Annabel and David based on tort. With regard to Annabel, it is a lawsuit for negligence, and as for David, there are two possible legal theories. The first is that Annabel is an employee of David, and therefore, David might be strictly liable. The second is that Annabel was not an employee but an independent contractor, but David might still be liable under certain situations for the acts of an independent contractor that he hired.
In your initial post:
(1) Summarize the law of negligence and analyze the facts to determine if Annabel is liable for Julie’s injuries under that legal theory (see pages 230-236 of the e-textbook for a discussion of negligence);
(2) Summarize the law that determines if Annabel is an employee or independent contractor of David (see pages 780-784 of the e-textbook for the tests);
(3) summarize the law related to the possible liability of principals (i.e., David) for the acts of an employee and/or independent contractor (see pages 802-808 for a review of that law); and
(4) based on that law, pick one of those possibilities for Annabel’s status, either that she was an employee or independent contractor, and then argue that David would be liable for Julie’s injuries under that status.

Sample Solution

Share on Facebook

Tweet

Follow us