COMPANY LAW : Iglesia Cristiana La Casa Del Senor, Inc. v. L.M.
Instruction:- Read Case 34-2, Iglesia Cristiana La Casa Del Senor, Inc. v. L.M. (attached).
Explain the concepts of agency and respondeat superior. Assume that L.M.’s account of the incident is true. Examine the exception to the “scope of employment” criteria mentioned by the judge. How could the plaintiff make an argument that Pacheco’s conduct was within the scope of his employment? You may have heard of similar cases in the news, where the employer of the offending party was held liable, such as cases involving a teacher and a student. On what basis should employers be held liable for the acts of their employees in these types of cases?
Solution.
COMPANY LAW : Iglesia Cristiana La Casa Del Senor, Inc. v. L.M.
COMPANY LAW
Explain the concepts of agency and respondent superior.
Agency refers to the legal relationship that exists between an employer and an employee. In this case, the individual working for the employer is referred to as the agent while the employer is referred to as the principal. The concept of respondent superior postulates that the principal has control over the behaviour of the agent and that the latter acts on behalf of the former (Burns, 2011). As such, the principal is expected to assume responsibility of some of the actions of the agent.
Assume that L.M.’s account of the incident is true. Examine the exception to the “scope of employment” criteria mentioned by the judge.
The general conduct of an employee with regards to their work is determined in consideration of the “scope of employment”. The facts presented in the case would be used to determine whether such an employee acted within the employment’s scope. It is upon the court to consider the job description of the employee, the place, purpose, and time of the act committed, their assigned duties, the level of conformance by the employee to the requirements of the job, and if the act could be reasonably expected of them (Miller, 2012). In the case, Pacheco’s conduct was beyond his scope of employment, as it was not expected of him to act the way he did. In addition, the times in which he interacted with L.M. and the places of their interaction including a hotel room were not within the definitions and expectations of their job.
How could the plaintiff make an argument that Pacheco’s conduct was within the scope of his employment?
To argue that Pacheco was within his scope of employment, the plaintiff should have argued that it was expected of Pacheco to offer advice to the members of the church and that there was no definite place and time defined for such advice and spiritual help to be carried out. In addition, Pacheco established his actions as within his scope of employment when he mentioned to L.M. that he wanted to discuss her parents’ marriage, an opportunity which he later exploited to assault her sexually.
You may have heard of similar cases in the news, where the employer of the offending party was held liable, such as cases involving a teacher and a student. On what basis should employers be held liable for the acts of their employees in these types of cases?
Employees can be held liable for the acts
of their employees if the forbidden act committed by the employee was necessary
for the employee to perform an assigned task, or if it is reasonably expected
for the employee to engage in such an act (Miller, 2012).
References
Burns, J. J. (2011). Respondeat Superior as an Affirmative Defense: How Employers Immunize Themselves from Direct Negligence Claims. Michigan Law Review, 657-681.
Miller, R. L. (2012). Cengage Advantage Books: Modern Principles of Business Law: Contracts, the UCC, and Business Organizations. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
