Business Law - Form of Business Organizations in US - Essay Example

Case 11 Kerl v. Dennis Rasmussen, Inc. IMPORTANT FACTS The plaintiff is seeking settlement from the defendant, claiming vicarious liability for injuries suffered consequent to an attack by one of the defendant’s employees, arguing negligent hiring and supervision. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was affirmed by the court. LEGAL ISSUE(S)Was DRI vicariously liable for Pierce’s actions? If not, what are the terms which govern employer-employee relationship and how are they distinguishable from those governing the master/servant relationship?

HOLDING/COURT’S DECISIONNo.DRI, the principal, has neither control over, nor the right to control the physical conduct and activities of its employees.COURT’S REASONINGThe court focused on the issue of vicarious liability and the master/servant and employer/employee relationship. Was DRI responsible for pierce’s day to day behavior and activities, thereby making it vicariously liable for the actions he subsequently took? The court found that the master/servant relationship is distinct from the employer/employee relationship.

Within the context of the former relationship, there exists a right and responsibility to control the behavior of subordinates but not so in the case of the latter relationship. DRI does not have the right or responsibility to control the day to day activities of its employees, especially when they occur off-premise.AGREE OR DISAGREE AND WHYI concur with the court’s ruling. DRI can not be held responsible for actions which Pierce undertook off their premise and, indeed, does not have the right to intervene with or control any employee’s off-premise actions.

Furthermore, the incident for which the plaintiff is suing the defendant was instigated by a prior relationship which the plaintiff had with the employee and is unrelated to the place of business. In other words, DRI is not, in any way, a party to the conflict between the defendant and the employer and cannot, therefore, be held vicariously liable for the shooting and the lifelong injuries subsequently suffered by Kerl. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONSAlthough DRI is not responsible for the incident in question and cannot be held vicariously liable, the Pierce case highlights the imperatives of management’s focusing on the behavior of employees who have a criminal record or have just been released from prison.

While management could not have physically restrained Pierce and forcibly prevented him from leaving the premise during his shift, it could have been more articulate in its clarification of the employee-employer relationship and precisely what was expected of Pierce. There is a clear incentive for employers to ensure that their employees’ behavior positively reflects on the company and, at the very least, does not negatively reflect on its public image. It is, thus, that irrespective of legal obligations, DRI management should have supervised Pierce much more closely. 1. What is the trend in Supreme Court cases that the article addresses?

The article discusses the Supreme Court’s trend towards the settlement of litigations in favor of big business. This stands in direct contrast the previous tendency to find against big business.2. Which justices on the Court are involved in the trend?Both Conservative and Liberal justices are involved in this trend but Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Scouter are singled out for their contribution.3. What are the specific topics of cases that were decided by the Court?The topics of the cases are anti-trust challenges to mergers, shareholder suits, disputes over patents, liability suits and punitive damage awards. 4. To what does the author attribute the change in the Court’s opinions?

The trend began with the appointment of John Roberts, who is sympathetic to business interests, as Chief Justice. It is rooted in the Supreme Court justice’s growing awareness of the value of free markets and the detrimental consequences of intervention and overregulation. 5. What is the role of the Chamber of Commerce in this change as to litigating?The Chamber of Commerce played a substantive role. To counter the influence of Nader’s consumer advocacy group, the Chamber of Commerce established a united front for businesses across the country and founded the national Chamber Litigation center.

The latter is devoted to filing cases and briefs on behalf of businesses and, in so doing, countering the litigation activities of Nader’s Public Citizen.6. What is the role of the Chamber of Commerce in this change as to lobbying?The chamber of Commerce has emerged as a massive and highly influential lobbying force. In just one year it spent $1 million on White House lobbying efforts. Hence, its role in this change as to lobbying is substantial.7. Summarize the position of the Chamber of Commerce as to punitive damage awards.

The court is reconsidering the size of punitive damage awards. While it had previously considered the 10 to 1 ration between punitive damages and compensatory awards acceptable, the court seems to be having a change of heart in light of the size of the awards and their potential effect on the economy and business interests.8. Summarize the position of the Chamber of Commerce as to products liability law.The Supreme Court is tending towards opposition to product liability lawsuits in light of the fact that products have been approved for popular use and have been deemed safe and appropriate by the Food and Drug Administration. 9. What does the author of the article see for the future?

The author does not see the court as changing its pro-business position any time soon, despite the fact that its position is contrary to popular public opinion. Furthermore, whether or not it is, at any time, in the future, pushed to do so partly depends on the executive branch and the justices it will recommend for appointment.10. What is the most important thing that you learned?I learnt that consumer and business interests are often at odds but the courts are not the place to settle disputes.

When courts are resorted to for liability and damages, this encourages an increase in litigation and cumulative payouts can adversely effect the economy. Therefore, from my perspective it is imperative that laws and legislature spell out the ways and means by which disputes will be settled, rather than leave the issue open to court settlements which can run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.