A salesman was to attend a meeting in a nearby city, but as he traveled there in his car, traffic was light, and he arrived about an hour early. Deciding not to waste the time, he went to a nearby shopping center to search for a birthday gift for his son. He found a tablet that he knew the boy would like, and headed out to drive to the building where the meeting was to be held. As he backed out of the parking space, however, he hit another car, damaging the car and injuring the driver. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior , is his employer liable for the accident? Why or why not?
A)Yes, the employer is liable for the accident because the salesman was driving to attend a company meeting
B)No, the employer is not liable for the accident because the salesman was on an errand of his own at the shopping center

Question

A salesman was to attend a meeting in a nearby city, but as he traveled there in his car, traffic was light, and he arrived about an hour early. Deciding not to waste the time, he went to a nearby shopping center to search for a birthday gift for his son. He found a tablet that he knew the boy would like, and headed out to drive to the building where the meeting was to be held. As he backed out of the parking space, however, he hit another car, damaging the car and injuring the driver. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior , is his employer liable for the accident? Why or why not?  ​
A)Yes, the employer is liable for the accident because the salesman was driving to attend a company meeting
B)No, the employer is not liable for the accident because the salesman was on an errand of his own at the shopping center

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The employer is not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because at the time of the accident, the salesman was engaged in a personal errand (shopping for a birthday gift for his son), which is unrelated to his employment duties.

A Salesman Was to Attend a Meeting in a Nearby