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 in and around the restaurant as well as escorting guests inside. One night a group of unruly guests got into a verbal altercation with G in the restaurant. G, being short-tempered, got irritated and ended up hitting one of the guests. The guests wish to make the restaurant liable.

• A. The restaurant is liable for G’s actions because his acts were within the course of employment
• B. The restaurant is not liable for G’s actions because the guests had started the fight
• 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 A

To determine if the restaurant is liable for the actions of G, the security guard, we apply the principle that an employer is liable for torts committed by an employee if they occur in the course of employment. We evaluate if G's actions are closely connected with his job functions. Let's break this down:

• Job Role: G was employed to maintain security and escort guests. His role is integral to handling interactions with guests, which can sometimes include managing conflicts or disturbances.
• Incident: A verbal altercation broke out between G and some guests. Being in charge of security, G's engagement in dealing with unruly behavior is within the scope of his duties.
• Tortious Act: G assaulted a guest, which was a direct result of the altercation. Though excessive, his reaction was closely linked to his security functions, as it stemmed directly from handling guest misconduct.

Using the legal test provided, the wrongful act of hitting the guest has a sufficient connection to his role in managing guest interactions and ensuring safety. Despite the act being improper, it was not so separate from his assigned tasks to fall outside the course of employment.

Therefore, the restaurant is liable for G’s actions because his acts were connected to his employment duties, albeit executed improperly.