Facts of Carz Bazaar Study Case

Carz Bazaar, a subsidiary of Colossal company, is an auto dealership in both original and second-hand cars with clear directives for how to manage showroom and vehicle lots. The company’s “key-control” procedure directs that “when any company needs to traffic a firm’s automobile, the information attendant must input data into a master submission system. The information necessary contains the month, day and time duration, the distinctive character of cars, the name of an employee, and the vehicle destination.” (UMUC, 2019). It is specified that: every time an employee checks out a vehicle, the reason must be for company business use.

Charles Wilson conducted personal business during his lunch with the company-owned vehicle, and on journeying back to the dealership; he rear-ended another car, injuring two people, a driver, and a passenger. Of note is that the company vehicle used by Wilson was not logged into the company’s computer entry by the attendant on duty Gina Mitchell, as is the company procedure. The attendant, Gina Mitchel, trusted Wilson would return the vehicle after the requested 30 minutes in the same condition. The two injured individuals by Wilson then sued the company for the injuries caused unto them. This paper, based on the facts above, will analyze to a conclusion the legal liability of the principal (Carz Bazaar) and the agent (Charles Wilson) to third parties by determining whether Carz Bazaar is liable for a car accident triggered by its employee (U.S. Legal, 2019).

Part I: Arguments in favor of the Plaintiff (accident victims)Charles Wilson is an employee of Carz Bazaar, the defendant. Therefore, Carz Bazaar has a fiduciary relationship with Charles Wilson, and thus, Carz Bazaar is legally accountable to Wilson’s acts of commission and omissions. Hence, the defendant is legally liable for Wilson’s actions.

Principle-agent relationship

By Wilson stating to the police officer on the accident scene that, “he was on his lunch

break from his job and that he had permission to drive the car, but his boss was not aware he had the car.” (UMUC, 2019). Therefore, he confirms that he drove the company vehicle on his capacity as the employee of Carz Bazaar. As a result of Wilson’s admission, the accident victims are right to sue the firm for their agents’ commissions and omissions of liable acts. The seeking for the tort of damages is in line with agency law on the principle-agent relationship, which holds Carz Bazaar accountable for Wilson’s negligent acts since Wilson was Carz Bazaar’s employee at the time of the liable actions (Gordon, 2016).

Duty of care principle

Wilson, the company’s employee, violated his duty of care by causing injuries to

plaintiffs while diving the defendant’s car. But since the car and Wilson belong to Carz Bazaar, with Wilson as the company employee and with the vehicle as a company-owned vehicle, the company is responsible for Wilson’s negligent acts. Although the company policy states that company vehicles are for business use and not personal use, Wilson used the company car for personal use. However, it is the company that failed in its duty of care by violating this policy by allowing Wilson to use its vehicle for personal usage. The on-duty officer, Mitchell, permitted Wilson’s use of the company’s car for private business, thus holding the company legally responsible for damages caused to the plaintiffs (Gordon, 2016).

Part II: Arguments for the defendant (Carz Bazaar)

Charles Wilson is an employee of Carz Bazaar, the defendant, and thus Carz Bazaar has

agency relationship with Charles Wilson. Therefore, Wilson has the representative authority of Carz Bazaar. However, in this case, Wilson’s actions are not under the actual authority or implied and cannot be ratified by the principal, Carz Bazaar. Thus, indicating that Wilson exceeded his powers and thus violated his terms of employment by engaging in actions outside his agency powers. Hence, the defendant, Carz Bazaar, cannot be held responsible for injuries caused to third parties, the plaintiffs. Therefore, Wilson and accomplice in the liable acts, Mitchell, would be legally held accountable for damages and injuries caused to third parties.

Violation of agency law by Wilson and Mitchell

Agency law, as stated by agent submission, governs principal-agent relationships through an employment contract. Wilson is obligated to act within the confines of his contract. Therefore, as bound by his employment contract, he failed to fulfill his fiduciary duties, including not serving his interests, not taking advantage of his position, and making full disclosure. Thus, he would be held legally liable to third parties to any action contravening his obligations under the employment contract (DeMott, 2018).

The plaintiff case against the defendant is evidence of negligence of duty by both Mitchell and Wilson. By visiting his mother, Wilson acted on his interest in breaching the agency law. Mitchell’s actions also amounted to a violation of obligation as she failed to fully declare documentation of the usage of the company’s vehicle. Both Wilson’s and Mitchell’s actions relieve the defendant of the liability due to agents’ negligence of duty and hence make both employees jointly legally accountable for the plaintiffs’ accident and injuries as by holding both agents responsible for the rear-ending of another car but not the car driver.

Frolic and Detour Principle

Wilson’s visit to his mother was unscheduled destination travel of pursuing a personal interest; consequently, Carz Bazaar is not legally responsible for the negligence acts of duty and injuries to third parties due to this detour. Also, Wilson’s visit to his mother was a personal matter and not a company’s business matter, and thus the defendant is relieved of liability. Frolic and detour accordingly solely place the legal burden on the Wilson, who was the car driver, and an accomplice in the responsible acts, Mitchell, deviated from the company’s policy (Harris, 2019).

Respondeat Superior Law of Superiority

The defendant can argue that the Wilson, the company’s employee, was not influenced by

any work obligation influence and was not under employment contract agreements and agreed on terms. Since Wilson stated that he was on a lunch break, lunch break is not a company’s business matter. Also, the defendant can argue that Wilson did not inform Carz Bazaar of his interest and only asked Mitchell of a favor. Also, since Mitchell is not her direct supervisor, he was not acting under direct supervisor instructions.

Mitchell provided company vehicle keys to Wilson without documenting the vehicle’s usage as dictated by the company policy. Therefore, this makes Wilson’s use of the company vehicle unauthorized and thus making him solely liable for the injuries and accidents to the third parties. Because Wilson and Mitchell’s actions, an accomplice in the responsible acts, violate their scope of employment and are beyond the scope of their job Thus, this would relieve their employer of the liability of their actions (Wells, 2020).

Defendant’s Legal Strategy.

Carz Bazaar pleadings to the court would be a reconsideration of the suit or dismissal of the suit in parts or its entirety. Carz Bazaar, the defendant, has to shift the burden of liability to Wilson, the driver, and Mitchel, the duty attendant, more specifically, Wilson, the driver. First, the defendant would provide evidence of employment contracts and agreement terms between them and the two employees, Wilson and Mitchel. It will help reduce or eliminate the liability of the principal, the defendant, as the defendant would not bound by the negligent acts of its employees and agents.

Secondly, the defendant would note that Carz Bazaar was unaware of the agents’ actions as stated by the facts of this case. The defendant would argue that agents’ acts of omission and commissions were neither expressly nor implied within the employment contracts and terms of the agreement. Additionally, the agent’s actions in contravention of his employment contract would be shown by his negligent act of using the company’s car without authorization for personal interest and outside the business scope. Moreover, this would be demonstrated by the negligent act of another agent, on duty attendant, Gina Mitchell, who violated the company’s policy by providing the company vehicle keys to Wilson without documenting its usage. Hence, the agents, employees, would be held personally liable for negligent acts outside their employment contracts and terms of agreements. Thus, the principal, the defendant, would be escape liability for such actions.

The evidence illustrated by the facts of the case indicates a violation of the company’s policy by its employees, Charles Wilson, and Gina Mitchell. Gina Mitchell violated the policy of documentation of the usage of the company’s vehicle, while, Charles Wilson violated the company policy by using the company’s vehicle for personal interest. Thus, relieving the defendant of liability as the car hit the plaintiff’s vehicle was unauthorized for the company’s usage. Therefore, Charles Wilson and Gina Mitchell, an accomplice in the liable acts, are personally answerable to the plaintiff’s injuries and damages.