Agency Formation and Termination
Bosse v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, d.b.a Chili’s Grill and Bar
Brendan Bosse and Michael Griffen were having a meal at the Chili's restaurant in Dedham, Massachusetts with two other teenagers in their group. The tab for the meal came to $56, but the group fled from the restaurant without paying and drove off. A regular patron of the restaurant saw them leave without paying and followed them in his own car. The teenagers saw the patron following them, so they stopped their car and confronted him in a parking lot at a nearby retail center. The pursuing patron yelled that he had seen them skip out on their bill at Chili's and that they would not get away with it. The patron's car was unmarked and contained no Chili's insignia. He wore civilian clothing and no uniform or other insignia of employment at Chili's. The teenagers then fled the lot, and a high-speed chase ensued through residential side streets. During the chase, the patron used his cell phone to call a Chili's employee and provided them with a description of the teenager’s car and the path of the chase. The Chili's employee then relayed this information to a 911 dispatcher. In the course of the high-speed chase, the teenagers collided with a cement wall and were injured. The pursuing patron left the crash scene area and was never identified.
Bosse and Griffen then sued the restaurant owner, Brinker Restaurant Corp. (Chili's Grill and Bar), for damages related to the crash. They argued that the actions of the parties resulted in the Chili's patron being converted to an agent of Chili's, that he conducted his chase as an agent of the restaurant, and that the restaurant should be liable for the consequences of his negligent or reckless pursuit. Brinker filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no genuine issue of fact existed regarding the lack of an agency relationship through express acts or implication. The superior court ruled in Chili’s favor because they determined that the patron who followed the teens was not an agent of Chili’s.
I chose this case because I thought it was a perfect example of how agency particularly works. The case demonstrates agency but it specifically brings into question the concept of implied agency due to the patron pursuing the plaintiff. Implied agency is an agency relationship that is created out of the conduct of both parties. It is inferred by circumstances that imply an intention to create an agency relationship, therefore, this case asks “Did the patron’s actions create an agency when they contacted the Chili’s employee?” However, there is no genuine issue that proves Bosse and Griffen’s claim of the patron working as an agent for Chili’s. There was no implied agency due to no consent for the patron’s actions, and there was no relationship or benefit for the restaurant, between them and the unknown patron.
Cheeseman, H. (2013). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues (8th ed., pp. 489-490). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Liability of Principal, Agents and Independent Contractors
Burlarley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Michael Burlarley and his wife were shopping at Wal-Mart for an hour and then went to checkout. The cashier started ringing up the items at outrageously high prices as a joke. The cashier also threw items at Burlarley. He was not amused and told her to stop. She did at first, but then she threw a bag containing shoes and shampoo, hitting Burlarley in the face. He sued Wal-Mart, which moved to dismiss the complaint because the cashier was not "acting within the scope of her employment." The trial court ruled for Wal-Mart, and so did the Albany-based 3rd Appellate Division. "In our view, (the lower) court properly concluded that throwing a full bag of heavy items at an unsuspecting customer's face as a 'joke' is not commonly done by a cashier, and indeed, substantially departs from a cashier's normal methods of performance," Justice Thomas Mercure wrote. Wal-Mart is not responsible for the actions of a bored cashier who started throwing items at a customer, including a bag containing shoes and shampoo, a New York appeals court ruled.
I chose this case because it clearly demonstrated the motivation test and brought into question whether or not the incident was work-related motivated. The motivation test means the agent's motivation in committing an intentional tort is to promote the principal's business, therefore, the principal is liable for any injury caused by the tort. However, if agent's motivation in committing the intentional tort is personal, principal is not liable, even if the tort takes place during business hours or on business premises. With this case, one would wonder if the work-related test should be applied. The work-related test means an agent commits an intentional tort within a work-related time or space, for example, during working hours or on the principal's premises, principal is liable for any injuries caused by agent's intentional torts. Agent's motivation is immaterial under this test. Since this case was ruled using the motivation test, it was found that the employee was motivated by personal reasons so Wal-Mart was not considered liable for the employee’s actions. The cashier's actions were not work-related motivated, but motivated by her desire to pass the time and relieve mounting frustration with her job. Wal-Mart also did not have any reason to believe that the cashier would engage in the complained-of behavior, since the employee had apparently worked as a cashier for many years without any significant disciplinary problems.
Cheeseman, H. (2013). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues (8th ed., pp. 505-506). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Bosse v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, d.b.a Chili’s Grill and Bar
Brendan Bosse and Michael Griffen were having a meal at the Chili's restaurant in Dedham, Massachusetts with two other teenagers in their group. The tab for the meal came to $56, but the group fled from the restaurant without paying and drove off. A regular patron of the restaurant saw them leave without paying and followed them in his own car. The teenagers saw the patron following them, so they stopped their car and confronted him in a parking lot at a nearby retail center. The pursuing patron yelled that he had seen them skip out on their bill at Chili's and that they would not get away with it. The patron's car was unmarked and contained no Chili's insignia. He wore civilian clothing and no uniform or other insignia of employment at Chili's. The teenagers then fled the lot, and a high-speed chase ensued through residential side streets. During the chase, the patron used his cell phone to call a Chili's employee and provided them with a description of the teenager’s car and the path of the chase. The Chili's employee then relayed this information to a 911 dispatcher. In the course of the high-speed chase, the teenagers collided with a cement wall and were injured. The pursuing patron left the crash scene area and was never identified.
Bosse and Griffen then sued the restaurant owner, Brinker Restaurant Corp. (Chili's Grill and Bar), for damages related to the crash. They argued that the actions of the parties resulted in the Chili's patron being converted to an agent of Chili's, that he conducted his chase as an agent of the restaurant, and that the restaurant should be liable for the consequences of his negligent or reckless pursuit. Brinker filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no genuine issue of fact existed regarding the lack of an agency relationship through express acts or implication. The superior court ruled in Chili’s favor because they determined that the patron who followed the teens was not an agent of Chili’s.
I chose this case because I thought it was a perfect example of how agency particularly works. The case demonstrates agency but it specifically brings into question the concept of implied agency due to the patron pursuing the plaintiff. Implied agency is an agency relationship that is created out of the conduct of both parties. It is inferred by circumstances that imply an intention to create an agency relationship, therefore, this case asks “Did the patron’s actions create an agency when they contacted the Chili’s employee?” However, there is no genuine issue that proves Bosse and Griffen’s claim of the patron working as an agent for Chili’s. There was no implied agency due to no consent for the patron’s actions, and there was no relationship or benefit for the restaurant, between them and the unknown patron.
Cheeseman, H. (2013). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues (8th ed., pp. 489-490). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Liability of Principal, Agents and Independent Contractors
Burlarley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Michael Burlarley and his wife were shopping at Wal-Mart for an hour and then went to checkout. The cashier started ringing up the items at outrageously high prices as a joke. The cashier also threw items at Burlarley. He was not amused and told her to stop. She did at first, but then she threw a bag containing shoes and shampoo, hitting Burlarley in the face. He sued Wal-Mart, which moved to dismiss the complaint because the cashier was not "acting within the scope of her employment." The trial court ruled for Wal-Mart, and so did the Albany-based 3rd Appellate Division. "In our view, (the lower) court properly concluded that throwing a full bag of heavy items at an unsuspecting customer's face as a 'joke' is not commonly done by a cashier, and indeed, substantially departs from a cashier's normal methods of performance," Justice Thomas Mercure wrote. Wal-Mart is not responsible for the actions of a bored cashier who started throwing items at a customer, including a bag containing shoes and shampoo, a New York appeals court ruled.
I chose this case because it clearly demonstrated the motivation test and brought into question whether or not the incident was work-related motivated. The motivation test means the agent's motivation in committing an intentional tort is to promote the principal's business, therefore, the principal is liable for any injury caused by the tort. However, if agent's motivation in committing the intentional tort is personal, principal is not liable, even if the tort takes place during business hours or on business premises. With this case, one would wonder if the work-related test should be applied. The work-related test means an agent commits an intentional tort within a work-related time or space, for example, during working hours or on the principal's premises, principal is liable for any injuries caused by agent's intentional torts. Agent's motivation is immaterial under this test. Since this case was ruled using the motivation test, it was found that the employee was motivated by personal reasons so Wal-Mart was not considered liable for the employee’s actions. The cashier's actions were not work-related motivated, but motivated by her desire to pass the time and relieve mounting frustration with her job. Wal-Mart also did not have any reason to believe that the cashier would engage in the complained-of behavior, since the employee had apparently worked as a cashier for many years without any significant disciplinary problems.
Cheeseman, H. (2013). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues (8th ed., pp. 505-506). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.