Weatherhead School of Management

write conclusion by comparing between the cases depending on the two questions in introduction  I highlighted in yellow

Scope of Employment
Introduction
In daily business activities, there sometimes arise disputes and neither the employee nor
the employer wants to take responsibility. Such disputes include injuries and compensation, which
the employers tend to ignore, and sometimes the workers blame the employers. Therefore, the
court takes charge to determine the allegations of the cases. The primary purpose of contract law
is to formally establish new connections and lay out the numerous legal duties that each party has
to the other. One area of contract law is the term “agency” which refers to the connection between
a principal and an agent in which the principal grants the agent the authority to act on the principal’s
behalf. An agency contract forms the foundation of such a partnership. The contract’s written or
implicit provisions govern the obligations of both the agent and the principal.
Scope of employment is one of the essential aspects that the law covers. In law, the term
“scope of employment” refers to all potential work-related activities, particularly those that are
legally foreseeable by the employer and reasonably related to the job description. Also, the concept
applies in civil lawsuits for workers’ compensation and personal injuries sustained at workplaces.
Scope of employment plays two crucial roles in ensuring effective business operations for every
organization.
First, the law provides this concept to help employees understand their roles and duties in
their respective business environments. Therefore, it eliminates quarrels between employers and
workers since they know their expectations. The second vital role played by the scope of
employment is to help the employee collect relevant workers’ compensation benefits for injuries
they sustain at the workplace. Generally, the scope of employment regulates the relationship
between employers and employees, governing what every party expects from each other and their
rights. To what extent is the employer responsible for employees’ torts in the scope of
employment? Are employers liable for intentional torts of employees? We will elucidate all these
issues in the following three cases:
Case 1: Majorana v. Crown Central Petroleum, 260 Va. 521, 539 S.E.2d 426 (Va. 2000)
Facts: An oil company and its employee were found liable in a class action brought by a customer.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer on the assault and emotional distress
claims. The jury, which was given interrogatories, returned a verdict in favor of the employer.
There simply are not sufficient facts which would permit a holding that the defendant has met its
burden of showing that its employee was not acting within the scope of his employment. No
opinion on this issue is expressed at this time, and the trial court’s action will be left undisturbed
pending further proceedings.
The plaintiff has failed to provide a transcript or authorized statement of fact summarizing the
argument made against the employer’s motion. In the absence of a record reflecting the reason
for the objection made in the trial court, it cannot be discerned whether the objection raised on
appeal was properly preserved below. There is no evidence in the record that a reasonable
investigation would have revealed that an employee had a propensity to commit assaults and,
thus, posed a threat to others in his employment with the employer. The plaintiff’s instructions
were not correct statements of law and were properly refused by the trial court.
Holding: Laura Majorana filed a motion for judgment against Crown Central Petroleum
Corporation (Crown) and Kuldip Singh Bains. Majorana alleged Bains lunged at her, attempted to
kiss her, grabbed her breasts, rubbed his body against hers, and made an animal-like conquering
scream. Crown filed a demurrer to the motion for judgment challenging the sufficiency under
Virginia law of claims for negligent training or retention. Crown asserted that when Bains moved
from behind the payment counter, he was acting thereafter outside the scope of his employment
and against the interests of Crown. Crown contends that Majorana failed to state her objection with
reasonable certainty to the trial court’s ruling.
We disagree, saying she adequately preserved the issue for review in this appeal. Crown relied
exclusively on the allegations of the motion for judgment to support its argument that Bains was
acting outside the scope of his employment. In Plummer, we held that an allegation that the
employee engaged in an improper sexual relationship with a patient stated a cause of action against
his employer. Crown contends that the absence of similar allegations in Majorana’s motion for
judgment of circumstances in the employment facilitating Bains’ assault materially distinguishes
her pleading from the pleading in Plummer.
Because of these factors, we will affirm the judgment in favor of the Crown on the claims of
negligence, gross negligence, and negligent hiring and retention, reverse the trial court’s entry of
summary judgment for the Crown on Majorana’s respondeat superior claims of liability for assault
and battery and intentionally causing emotional distress, and remand the case for further
proceedings in accordance with the opinions in this opinion.
Case2: Butler v. Southern States Coop., Inc., 270 Va. 459, 620 S.E.2d 768 (Va. 2005)
Fact: Plaintiff worked at a retail company that sold agricultural products. The shop employed the
defendant as a delivery person despite being aware of his prior criminal conviction for felony rape and
felony parole violation. Plaintiff was obligated to go with the specific defendant on a truckload delivery,
during which he caressed her hair, kissed her ear, and grabbed her face with his hands in an effort to kiss
her. In connection with this incident, the individual defendant was found guilty of misdemeanor assault
and battery, and the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment against both this person and the employer,
alleging assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as negligent hiring and
retention and respondeat superior. The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act applies to injuries by accident
arising out of and in the course of an individual’s employment. Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment against
both this individual and the employer asserting claims of assault, battery and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. The trial court sustained special pleas in bar under the exclusive remedies provisions
of the workers’ compensation act. A physical assault may constitute an “accident” within the meaning of
the Act when it appears that it was the result of an actual risk arising out of the employment. The
individual defendant’s actions were in no way in furtherance of his employer’s business and plaintiff’s
injury cannot fairly be traced to her employment.
Allegations of respondeat superior liability in the plaintiff’s motion for judgment do not cause her to claim
to be barred under the Act. The exclusivity provision of Code. 65.2-307 applies only to an injury both
“arising out of” and “in the course of” an individual’s employment.
Holding: Butler asserts the error in the judgment of the trial court sustaining the special pleas in the bar
on two grounds. Butler contends that Allen’s assault upon her is an injury by accident arising out of and
in the course of her employment. Butler also argues that even if her injury is otherwise compensable
under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the jury erred in finding that the statutory exceptions to Code §
65.2-307 do not apply. The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act applies to injuries by accident “arising out
of and in the course of” an individual’s employment. The dispute between the parties is whether the
physical assault upon Butler arose “in the course” of her employment.
When the assault occurred she was in the process of making an authorized delivery of feed for her
employer. Southern States argue that by hiring Allen, Southern States had knowingly exposed all of its
female employees to a safety risk. We hold that when an assault is personal to the employee and not
directed against her as an employee or because of her employment, the injury does not arise out of the
employment. Southern States argues that Butler’s allegations of respondeat superior liability in her
motion for judgment necessarily cause her claim to be barred under the Act. The exclusivity provision of
Code. 65.2-307 applies only to an injury both “arising out of” and “in the course of” an individual’s
employment.
Case: Gina Chin & Associates, Inc. v. First Union Bank, 260 Va. 533, 537 S.E.2d 573 (Va. 2000)
Fact: A bank teller collaborated with an accounting clerk to deposit checks totaling $270,488.72. The two
were convicted of bank fraud in federal court. The bank moved to strike the evidence, asserting that the
plaintiff had failed to establish that the teller was acting within the scope of his employment. An act is
within the scope of employment if it was directed by an employer or is naturally incident to the business.
If an employee commits a willful and wrongful act that results in injury, simple logic suggests that the
employee generally does not do the act with the intent to further the employer’s interest.
Employer-employee relationship creates a prima fade rebuttable presumption of the employer’s liability.
The burden is on the employer to prove that the employee was not acting within the scope of his
employment when committing the act complained of, and if the evidence leaves the question in doubt it
becomes an issue to be determined by the jury. There is no merit in the bank’s assertion that plaintiff’s
evidence establishes that the teller’s wrongful acts were not expressly or impliedly directed by the bank.
The bank does not contest that plaintiff produced clear evidence that established the necessary
employment relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff.
There is no merit in the bank’s assertion that the plaintiff’s evidence establishes that the teller’s wrongful
acts were not directed by the bank. The test is whether the service itself, in which the tortious act was
done, was within the ordinary course of the employer’s business. A bank teller engaged in acts that were
not within the scope of his employment. Nonetheless, it is clear that in doing so he was accepting checks
for deposit. Plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of the necessary
employment relationship at the time of the incident.
Holding: A bank teller does not intend to further the interest of his employer bank when he knowingly
accepts forged checks for deposit for his own gain. Courts have consistently held that proof of an
employer-employee relationship creates a prima facie rebuttable presumption of the employer’s liability.
An act committed in violation of an employer’s direction is not always beyond the scope of the
employment. In Commercial Business Systems, an employee created a company business to work with
companies that provided services to his employer. Although the employee’s motive was to advance his
self-interest, rather than the interest of his employer, he was nonetheless “performing his duties”.
Conclusion
The doctrine of respondeat superior imposes vicarious liability on an employer for the torts of an
employee acting within the scope of his or her employment. The inquiry should be whether the
risk was one that may fairly be regarded as typical of or broadly incidental to the enterprise
undertaken by the employer.
The first case. However, in the second case, Plaintiff alleged assault by fellow employee.
Plaintiff further alleged that the assault was the result of that fellow employee’s personal attraction
to her. Where the assault is personal to the employee and not directed against her as an employee,
then her injury may not be covered under the Worker’s Compensation Act.
In the third case, Teller at bank engaged in scheme to deposit forged checks into accounts
for fraudulent purposes. Issue was whether teller was acting within scope of employment. Trial
court improperly struck plaintiff’s evidence at conclusion of plaintiff’s case. This issue should have
been submitted to jury for determination. Lastly, the legal consideration of activities done by an
employee in the working field during working hours for the employer’s interest should set the
base of determination of the scope of employment. Hence, employers are responsible for the
employees’ mistakes if proven they acted within the working time, with no personal gain and
interest, and the action was profitable to the employer, otherwise, the employee will be
responsible.
References
Casetext. (n.d.). Retrieved from Butler v. Southern States Coop., Inc.: https://casetext.com/case/butlerv-southern-states-coop-inc
Casetext. (n.d.). Retrieved from Gina Chin & Associates, Inc. v. First Union Bank:
https://casetext.com/case/gina-chin-associates-v-first-union-bank/
Casetext. (n.d.). Retrieved from Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.:
https://casetext.com/case/jeewarat-v-warner-bros-entertainment-inc