. A delivery truck driver who worked for the Evening Star in Washington, DC, was on his route when he was commanded by a police officer to follow a traffic violator to apprehend him. The police officer then jumped onto the side of the truck and held on for the duration of the chase. During the high-speed pursuit, Balinovic was injured when the truck collided with his car. Balinovic wanted to sue both the driver and the Evening Star under the theory of vicarious liability. Would vicarious liability apply here? Was the driver a servant of the Evening Star? Was the driver operating within the scope of employment? Explain. [See: Balinovic v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 113 F.2d 505 (D.C. Cir.).]
. A delivery truck driver who worked for the Evening Star in Washington, DC, was on his route when he was commanded by a police officer to follow a traffic violator to apprehend him. The police officer then jumped onto the side of the truck and held on for the duration of the chase. During the high-speed pursuit, Balinovic was injured when the truck collided with his car. Balinovic wanted to sue both the driver and the Evening Star under the theory of vicarious liability. Would vicarious liability apply here? Was the driver a servant of the Evening Star? Was the driver operating within the scope of employment? Explain. [See: Balinovic v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 113 F.2d 505 (D.C. Cir.).]
Lloyd, an attorney, was appointed guardian of Ernest Parker. Two years later, he was appointed guardian of Virginia Hockenberry. That same year, he agreed to represent David Isaac in the purchase of a plot of real estate from Debra Taylor. On several occasions, Lloyd deposited client settlement checks into his own account. The funds received were therefore commingled with the funds in his personal account. He later used these funds to pay for his student loans, his automobile loan, his insurance, his taxes, his outstanding credit card bills, and his barber. Identify the duties that Lloyd has violated in relation to his principals, Parker, Hockenberry, and Isaac. [See: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Lloyd, 643 N.E.2d 1086 (OH).]
Eugene Meade was offered a job by Cedarapids Inc. The job required moving to Eugene, Oregon, where Cedarapids had a facility called the El-Jay Plant. To entice Meade to join the Cedarapids staff, management representatives told him that business was improving, that they believed in the potential of the El-Jay plant, that El-Jay sales were growing, that production at the plant was also increasing, and that there were plans to bring in even greater numbers of new employees. On the basis of these assurances, Meade left his job and moved to Oregon. He also signed an agreement that noted that he was an at-will employee who could be fired at any time. Meade later discovered that all of the statements about the financial health of the El-Jay plant were false. Furthermore, Meade believed that the management had known all along that the statements were false. Meade learned that the El-Jay plant was actually caught in a downward economic spiral and was about to close. When Meade was discharged, he brought a lawsuit against Cedarapids, arguing that he had been defrauded into moving to Oregon. In response, the Cedarapids management team argued that they had no duty to disclose the plan to shut down the Oregon facility. The management team also pointed to the agreement that Meade had signed and concluded that, as an at-will employee, he could not complain about his firing. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case. Meade then filed an appeal. Is there enough evidence of fraud in this case to allow it to go to a jury? Explain. [See: Meade v. Cedarapids, Inc., Case No. 97-35836 (The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit).]
.Bennerson was employed by the Checker Garage Service Corporation as an auto mechanic. His duties included both assisting mechanics in the garage and making road calls to service vehicles owned and operated by his employer. During his lunch hour, Bennerson used one of his employer’s taxi cabs to drive to a restaurant. En route to the restaurant, he was seriously injured when the taxi struck a pole. Bennerson filed a claim before the workers’ compensation board. His claim was granted. Checker Garage appealed, arguing among other things that the taxi that Bennerson drove did not “go out of control” but that Bennerson had lost control. Was Checker correct? Explain. [See: Bennerson v. Checker Garage Service Corporation, 388 N.Y.S.2d 374 (NY).]
.Bennerson was employed by the Checker Garage Service Corporation as an auto mechanic. His duties included both assisting mechanics in the garage and making road calls to service vehicles owned and operated by his employer. During his lunch hour, Bennerson used one of his employer’s taxi cabs to drive to a restaurant. En route to the restaurant, he was seriously injured when the taxi struck a pole. Bennerson filed a claim before the workers’ compensation board. His claim was granted. Checker Garage appealed, arguing among other things that the taxi that Bennerson drove did not “go out of control” but that Bennerson had lost control. Was Checker correct? Explain. [See: Bennerson v. Checker Garage Service Corporation, 388 N.Y.S.2d 374 (NY).]
