Discussion 1: Damage Apportionment”
- Part A: What is the individual liability of defendants under the theory of joint and several liability? Under this theory, how might a plaintiff choose to collect damages where there are two defendants, one who is relatively poor and one who is relatively wealthy? Review p. 374 for reference.
- Part B: What is the individual liability of defendants under the theory of several liability? What type of rules do some states use to enable the plaintiff to collect an insolvent defendant’s “orphan share?” Review p. 380 for reference.
“Discussion 2: Scope of Employment”
- Part A: Determine whether or not an employer will be held vicariously liable for an employee’ s tortious acts if the act was determined to be “incidental” to employer’s employment? What if the tortious act was determined to be “during the scope of employment”?
Please read for a reference Trahan-Laroche v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc. at 657 A. 2d 417 (NH. 1995) and at p. 404 of your textbook.
- Part B: Consider these circumstances, “special errands,” and “complete abandonment of special errands,” and determine in which circumstances the employer may be potentially vicariously liable. Provide a rationale for your response. Please read for a reference, O’Connor v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California at 269 Cal. Reptr. 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) and at p. 406 of your text.