Agency Flashcards
What is the test for whether the principal will be vicariously liable for torts committed by its agent?
- There is a principal-agent relationship, and
- The tort was committed by the agent within the scope that relationship..
What does the principal-agent relationship require?
Assent, benefit, and control (AB&C)
What is assent?
An informal agreement between the principal who has capacity and the agent.
What is benefit?
The agent’s conduct must be for the principal’s benefit.
There will always be assent, benefit, and control between…
employer and employee.
Will the principal be vicariously liable if its agent gets the help of a sub-agent and the sub-agent commits the tort?
The principal will be liable for a sub agent’s tort only if there is AB&C between the principal and the sub-agent.
Typically, the principal does not assent to the sub-agent’s help and does not have the right to control the sub agent. Therefore…
Without AB&C, there is no vicarious liability for a sub-agent’s torts in this situation.
Will a principal who borrows another principal’s agent be vicariously liable for the borrowed agent’s tort?
If a principal borrows another principal’s agent, the borrowing principal will be liable for the borrowed agent’s torts if there is AB&C between them.
Typically, although the borrowing principal may assent to, and benefit from the borrowed agent, the borrowing principal does not assume any right to control the borrowed agent. Therefore, typically no vicarious liability.
The key distinction between an agent and an independent contractor is that:
- There is no right to control an independent contractor, because
- there is no power to supervise the manner of the IC’s performance.
In general, there is no vicarious liability for an independent contractor’s torts. What are the exceptions to this?
- Inherently dangerous activities
- If IC commits tort while engaged in an inherently dangerous activity, there will be VL.
- Estoppel
- If you hold out your independent contractor with the appearance of agency you’ll be estopped from denying VL.
How do you tell if the agent’s conduct was within the scope of the partnership?
- The conduct was “of the kind” the agent was hired to perform
- The tort occurred on the job
- The agent intended to benefit the principal
What is the “of the kind” requirement?
Was the conduct within the job description? If so, it’s likely inside the scope.
When considering whether conduct is “on the job,” what is a frolic v. detour?
- Frolic
- A new and independent journey
- Outside the scope
- Detour
- A mere departure from an assigned task
- Still inside the scope
What does “intent to benefit” mean?
If the agent, even in part, intended to benefit the principal by its conduct, that’s enough to be inside the scope
Intentional torts are generally outside the scope of the relationship. What are the exceptions?
Intentional torts are within the scope if the conduct was:
- Authorized by the principal; or
- If the conduct was natural from the nature of the agent’s employment; or
- The conduct was motivated by a desire to serve the principal