Author Question: An agent with authority to represent the principal only for a specific transaction, usually for a ... (Read 98 times)

123654777 · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

An agent with authority to represent the principal only for a specific transaction, usually for a limited time is a(n):
a. universal agent b. gratuitous agent
c. agent who has an agency coupled with an interest d. one-time agent
e. none of the other choices

Question 2

Employment Relationships. Matt Theurer, an eighteen-year-old high school senior, worked part-time at a McDonald's restaurant in Oregon. Theurer volunteered to work an extra shift one day, in addition to his regular shifts (one preceding and one following the extra shift). After working about twelve hours during a twenty-four-hour period, Theurer told the manager that he was tired and asked to be excused from his next regularly scheduled shift so that he could rest. The manager agreed. While driving home from work, Theurer fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into a van driven by Frederic Faverty. Theurer died, and Faverty was severely injured. Faverty sued McDonald's, alleging, among other things, that McDonald's had been negligent in permitting Theurer to drive a car when it should have known that he was too tired to drive safely. Do employers have a duty to prevent fatigued employees from driving home from work? Should such a duty be imposed on them? How should the court decide this issue? How would you decide the issue if you were the judge?

aprice35067 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

Employment relationships
The court ruled in favor of Faverty. McDonald's argued that under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sections 315, that there is no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless (a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection. In this case, the third person was Theurer. The court explained, however, that unless a defendant invokes a special status or relationship, or is subject to a particular statutory standard of conduct, it is subject to the general duty to avoid conduct that unreasonably creates a foreseeable risk of harm to a plaintiff. This is the same duty that we all have. The jury decided that McDonald's knew or should have known that Theurer was so exhausted or fatigued that it should have foreseen that working him three shifts in one 24-hour period would create a foreseeable risk of harm to motorists such as plaintiff. In other words, by not preventing Theurer from driving home from work, McDonald's unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff.