1
Chapter 30
Liability of Principals, Agents, and Independent Contractors
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
30.1 Frolic and Detour
reasonable finder of fact could find from this evidence that Spires was subject to the direction and control
of Johnson Welded Products as to the operation of his truck at the time of the collision, while he was on
his way to a friend’s house for lunch. We can see no reason why Johnson Welded Products would have
any desire to control the manner in which its employees drive to or from work.” The court held that Spires
was not acting within his scope of employment when he collided with and injured Siegenthaler. The court
30.2 Agent
No. The court of appeal held that the coming and going rule did not apply in this case. The undisputed
evidence was that at the time of the accident, Brandon, an employee of Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.,
was traveling from the airport to his home, with no intention of going to his office. Brandon’s route from
the airport coincidentally passed his office, which happened to be on his return route home. A special
employment while going to or coming from the workplace. However, exceptions will be made to the
going and coming rule where the trip involves an incidental benefit to the employer, not common to
commute trips by ordinary members of the work force. When an employee is engaged in a special errand
30.3 Independent Contractor
Sanchez wins. Generally, a principal is not liable for the negligent or intentional conduct of an
independent contractor it hires. However, there is an exception to this rule that provides that a principal is
liable for negligent or intentional conduct of an independent contractor if it hired the independent
2
an automobile from a defaulting debtor is an inherently dangerous activity and a nondelegable duty. The
court concluded that El Paso had breached the peace in repossessing the car from Sanchez and caused her
physical and emotional harm. Therefore, MBank, the principal, could not escape liability by hiring an
30.4 Contract Liability
Both Elvin Grinder personally and G. Elvin Grinder Construction, Inc., are liable to Bryans Road
Building & Supply Co., Inc. This is a situation of an undisclosed principal. An agent who makes a
contract in his own name without disclosing his agency and the identity of the principal is liable on the
contract to the other party. The principal is liable because the contract was made for his benefit. The court
Appeals of Maryland)
30.5 Tort Liability
Yes, the Newspaper Agency Corporation (NAC) may be held liable to the Johnsons for the negligence of
its employee-agent, Donald Rogers. An agent is always liable for his own negligence caused when acting
on behalf of his principal, and the principal is liable for the negligence of its agent if the agent was acting
30.6 Tort Liability
Yes, Intrastate Radiotelephone, Inc., is liable to Largey for the injuries caused by its agent, Kranhold.
Generally, a principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of its agents, including acts
committed by such agents while acting within the scope of their employment. Ordinarily, while an
exception to the coming and going rule applies in this case. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of
the trial court that was entered in favor of Largey against Intrastate. Largey v. Intrastate Radiotelephone,
Inc., 136 Cal. App.3d 660, 186 Cal. Rptr. 520, 1982 Cal. App. Lexis 2049 (Court of Appeal of California)
VII. Answer to Ethics Case
30.7 Ethics Case
3
compensation coverage, and withholds federal and state taxes from employees’ paychecks. Hays directed
the work of its employees who pulled stumps from the ground and the truckers who delivered the stumps
to Hercules. The U.S. district court stated, “It is Hays who determined the time, manner, and method of
fees and other costs of defending the lawsuit. Lewis v. D. Hays Trucking, Inc., 701 F.Supp.2d 1300, 2010
U.S. Dist. Lexis 28035 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, 2010)