Question

Apply the given legal principles to the facts provided in the following of the question and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle : An employer is liable for the acts of their employee if a tort is committed by the employee in the course of employment.
To determine whether an act falls within the course of employment, one must look at the functions/work that the employee was tasked with and then evaluate if there was a close connection between the employee’s job function and the wrongful act in question.
Facts : G was employed as a security guard by a restaurant. He was tasked with maintaining security around the restaurant and escorting guests inside. One night after G’s shift, a group of unruly passers-by initiated an altercation with G near the restaurant. Greatly upset by the altercation, G went home and got into an inebriated state. In this state, he negligently caused a fire in his home. G’s family members wish to make the restaurant liable.

• A. The restaurant is liable for G’s actions because G would not have had the altercation but for being present in that location due to his job
• B. The restaurant is liable for G’s actions because a security guard is likely to have altercations with people in the course of employment
• C. The restaurant is not liable for G’s actions because his acts were outside the course of employment
• D. None of the above

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

To solve this problem, we need to apply the legal principle of vicarious liability as stated in the given principle and analyze the facts to determine if the restaurant can be held liable for the actions of its employee, G. The principle states that an employer is liable if an employee commits a tort in the course of employment. To decide if an action is within the course of employment, we assess the tasks assigned to the employee and see if there's a close connection between the job function and the tortious act.

Analysis:

• G was employed as a security guard with duties to maintain security and escort guests.
• The altercation that upset G happened near the restaurant and was initiated by passers-by, not during the execution of his specific tasks.
• Further actions of G, getting drunk and causing a fire at home, were personal and disconnected from his job function.
• The negligent act leading to the fire was a personal action, in no way connected to or part of his professional duties.

Conclusion:

Given that G's actions resulting in the fire were personal and outside his course of employment, the restaurant is not liable. Therefore, the most appropriate answer is:

The restaurant is not liable for G’s actions because his acts were outside the course of employment