Business Law Strategic Considerations

Kenny's mother sues Authorit-I for the damage caused by Cartman.

Cartman was allegedly conducting business, but he was not expected by Authorit-I to conduct himself in the drunken negligent manner he did resulting in the death of Kenny. Authorit-I would be liable for these actions only if Cartman was acting within the scope of his authority as an employee. In this case, the negligent behavior was definitely not requested or authorized by Authroir-I, furthermore, it was not the kind of behavior that Cartman was hired to perform. Consuming alcohol and acting so idiotic was not within the scope of his employment; therefore Authrorit-I is not liable because Cartman's negligent conduct was committed outside the scope of his employment.

In addition, the motivation test for an intentional tort indicates that Cartman's motivation in committing the intentional negligent act was for personal purposes – to look cool and to show a cool trick and not to benefit Authorit-I. Authroti-I is not liable even though it took place during an alleged business meeting. Cartman did not perform the cool trick as part of his job or any employment related purpose and Authorit-I did not gain any benefit from the negligent action. Cartman should be held personally liable for his own tortuous conduct. Kenny's death was the fault of Cartman himself and Authorit-I would not be held liable for Cartman's actions in this case.

Kenny's Poor-Man's Bar sues Authorit-I for the damage caused by Cartman.

My first thoughts were that Kenny's Poor-Man's Bar had a good case against Authorit-I for several reasons. Typically an employer would be held liable for the negligent act of their employee if the employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The damages happened while Cartman was employed with Authroit-I, Cartman was holding his sales meeting with his client, Kyle, at Kenny's Poor-Man's Bar which was outside of the Kyle's place of business at Kyle's request. They were supposedly discussing business when the negligent actions occurred.

Although those facts exist, I don't believe Authrorit-I is liable because even though the scenario is not completely unrelated to Cartman's sale of security equipment to bars, it happened in a location that was not part of the sales negotiation with Kyle. The location of this meeting was not advancing the work for which Cartman was sent to this location to acquire. Cartman's negligent conduct was committed outside the scope of his employment and Authorit-I would not benefit in any way from the scenerio. Cartman decided to go to that bar even though it was not the client's place of business, or where the business transaction should occur. He ordered and consumed pure grain alcohol which also is definitely not an action to

...