Alright i'll have a go.
Case 1:
1. No, there was no agreement of anything
2. Yes, seems like all 3 conditions of an agency relationship are met
3. No, because in that scenario I'm acting on my own behalf
Case 2:
1. I would have to say she is not liable because she was only responsible for providing her car, not getting kids to and from the game safely.
2. the coach was acting subject to Miss Sara's control because he had a condition of not allowing a teenager to drive the car, which he agreed and adhered to.
3. No, not really. Miss Sara wasn't responsible for getting those kids to and from the game, she simply agreed to provide her car for the transportation.
Case 3:
1. Yes. I think in this case LA Dodgers' employee was acting recklesly within the scope of his employment and they can be held responsible for his actions
2. Idk much about baseball but I'd say Terry is an employee because he is in the team, uses all of the equipment of the team and responds directly to his coach.
3. Terry was acting dumb as an eployee of Dodgers because it was durring a game and the verbal abuse he received would have probably directly affected his performance in the game.
Case 4:
1. No. First of all he himself contributed to the danger. Furthermore he could have called 911 in this situation and the dangers of driving drunk could potentially be more severe than the dangers of having a wound as at that point you're also putting other people at risk.
Case 5:
1. Yes. It mees all the criteria for necessity defense:
- They reasonably believed that they would starve to death if they didn't take action
- They believed there was no alternative other than sacrificing a crew member in order to survive
- The potential deaths of all crew members avoided by sacrificing just one seemed like a reasonable tradeoff
- The defendants did not cause the crash and they couldn't control the circumstances of being stranded, so the situation was out of their control.
Last edited by Smaguris; Apr 19, 2022 at 10:15 PM.