After studying for most of this morning, I wanted to take a break. However, my break involved coming up with a way of putting all of this Agency stuff in my brain to some sort of a post. What I came up with is a story with pictures and then the legal result from what I think I have learned.
This post should really be called "Shit I Think I Know About the Law Because Ive Taken a Few Law School Classes." But, it sounded a little clunky:
Ok, here are my facts:
This is Bob:
Say hi to Bob.
Bob is the lucky owner of a Medical Marjiuana Shop called Bob's Joint (perfectly legal in the state of California)
Bob has a brilliant idea to start a delivery service for his customers (other legally carrying card holders) that are physically unable to make it to his shop. He decides to hire his buddy Jake to do the delivering for him. Jake has been Bob's friend for years and he knows that he probably loves weed a little too much.
On his way to one of his deliveries, Jake decides to spark a joint. While biking, the joint goes out and he tries to relight it without slowing the bike down. He doesn't realize Ian stepping off from the curb and he runs over him.
Ian comes to me wanting his payday. Who is liable?
A pretty typical question that we have been receiving from Prof. Cole, but with a Prof. Purdy twist (the weed part). [sidebar Nerd Alert: for some reason whenever I call a teacher professor I automatically feel like Im in Hogwarts. I automatically picture Hermione saying "My potion's professor....". ]
Since Bob hired Jake to be his delivery guy, Jake is technically Bob's agent.
The legal definition of an agency relationship is the fiduciary (good faith) relationship that arises when one person (a principal) manifests assent to another person (an agent). The agent shall act on the principal's behalf, and he/she is subject to the principal's control. The agent must manifests assent or otherwise consents to act.
Here, Bob is clearly the principal and Jake is clearly the agent in a "master/servant" or "employer/employee" manner. Without the directions from Bob, Jake would not have any deliveries to make and his job as a delivery boy would cease. By going on the deliveries, Jake consents to being Bob's agent
The rule of Respondeat Superior imposes strict, vicarious liability (blame) on a principle when a) an agent's tort has caused physical injury to a person or property b) the agent meets the criteria to be considered a "servant/employee" of the principle, and c) the tortous conduct occurred within the servant/employee's "scope of employment"
Ian's inability to walk should satisfy part a) of the Resondeat Superior Rule, unless I can somehow prove his injuries are fake. As I said above, Jake certainly meets the criteria for "server/employee" status, covering b). "Scope of employment" is also a slam dunk since Jake was on his way to a delivery when the collision occurred. Bingo Bango, we have someone to sue.
As Ian's lawyer, I would advise him to bring a suit against Bob's Joint since the principal is clearly liable under Respondeat Superior. Since this was a tortous act, Jake is still liable for any wrongs that he produces. But, Jake probably does not have the money to pay for Ian's medical bills and other damages. Bob and his medical marijuana company certain does and he is the mark.
Bob's prior knowledge of Jake's over consumption of weed places even more negligence on Bob's since the risk could have been avoided. In short, Bob is most likely screwed and will have to pay Ian.
However, Bob can still hold Jake liable for the money that he losses in this suit against Ian. As Bob's agent, Jake has a duty to act with care, competence, and diligence. Smoking weed on the job definitely would be a breach of this. But Jake is a stoner. So, good luck getting that money back.
No comments:
Post a Comment