Unit 8 Discussion Scope of Employment Rhonda Plascencia worked as a sales representative for iHiker and received a commission for all sales. Rhonda often visited sporting goods stores to make sales. Rhonda was traveling between sales calls in her role as an iHiker sales representative. While driving on a highway in Colorado, Rhonda rear-ended another vehicle driven by William Chase that caused significant damage to the other vehicle and personal injuries to William. Rhonda admitted that at the time of the accident she was using the mapping and GPS functions on her cell phone to check the location of her next sales call and to determine how late she was running, and that she was not looking at the road. William Chase alleges the iHiker is directly liable for William's property damage and personal injuries for breaching a duty to train Rhonda to not use her cell phone while driving and is vicariously liable for damages because Rhonda was ¡Hiker's agent at the time of the accident, as she was en route to a customer's business while acting as an ¡Hiker sales representative. Discuss whether you think there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that an agency relationship existed between Rhonda and iHiker, to hold ¡Hiker vicariously liable.
Unit 8 Discussion Scope of Employment Rhonda Plascencia worked as a sales representative for iHiker and received a commission for all sales. Rhonda often visited sporting goods stores to make sales. Rhonda was traveling between sales calls in her role as an iHiker sales representative. While driving on a highway in Colorado, Rhonda rear-ended another vehicle driven by William Chase that caused significant damage to the other vehicle and personal injuries to William. Rhonda admitted that at the time of the accident she was using the mapping and GPS functions on her cell phone to check the location of her next sales call and to determine how late she was running, and that she was not looking at the road. William Chase alleges the iHiker is directly liable for William's property damage and personal injuries for breaching a duty to train Rhonda to not use her cell phone while driving and is vicariously liable for damages because Rhonda was ¡Hiker's agent at the time of the accident, as she was en route to a customer's business while acting as an ¡Hiker sales representative. Discuss whether you think there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that an agency relationship existed between Rhonda and iHiker, to hold ¡Hiker vicariously liable.
Related questions
Question
Business law disucss
Transcribed Image Text:Unit 8 Discussion
Scope of Employment
Rhonda Plascencia worked as a sales representative for iHiker and received a
commission for all sales. Rhonda often visited sporting goods stores to make sales.
Rhonda was traveling between sales calls in her role as an iHiker sales representative.
While driving on a highway in Colorado, Rhonda rear-ended another vehicle driven
by William Chase that caused significant damage to the other vehicle and personal
injuries to William. Rhonda admitted that at the time of the accident she was using
the mapping and GPS functions on her cell phone to check the location of her next
sales call and to determine how late she was running, and that she was not looking at
the road.
William Chase alleges the iHiker is directly liable for William's property damage and
personal injuries for breaching a duty to train Rhonda to not use her cell phone while
driving and is vicariously liable for damages because Rhonda was ¡Hiker's agent at the
time of the accident, as she was en route to a customer's business while acting as an
¡Hiker sales representative.
Discuss whether you think there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that an
agency relationship existed between Rhonda and iHiker, to hold ¡Hiker vicariously
liable.
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
