Please, respond to the two classmate discussion posts attached. See attachment for more instructions as well.
Thank you
Instructions for the two classmate responses (around 125 words each) Please, respond to the below two classmate main posts. (Please, the responses need to be a discussion, not an evaluation. You can agree with them and add/comment about their response.) Also, no citation is needed Thank you Classmate post #1: Chante Jones I do not believe the doctrine of respondeat superior should be modified to make agents solely liable for their tortious (wrongful) acts committed within the scope of employment. The respondeat superior doctrine states that any harm caused to a third party by and agent-employee, the principle-employee is liable. Employers reap the benefits of having employees work for them and therefore should also bear the liability as well. If a customer suffers harm due to the fault of an agent during the scope or course of employment, the principle should be held liable for damages. If the agent was held liable the third party may not be able to recoup damages if the agent can not afford to pay. Businesses can spread the cost of the risk over the entire business and therefore are typically in a better financial position to ensure the third party is restored. I believe the business should also be held liable for an employee who commits a criminal act upon a customer. For example, Tracy goes into Livid, a nightclub, and an altercation takes place where she is assaulted by security although she was not involved in the altercation, Livid can be held liable. Clarkson, Miller, & Cross. (2018). Business Law (14th ed.). Cengage Learning Classmate post # 2: Amanda Cachat The employer is responsible for the employees within operation hours. In the story about Valerie Watts, she is terminated for violating the store's no-fighting policy. She should already be aware of the policy due to the employee handbook. She is a liability to the employer because she could have the store charged for her actions. The doctrine of respondeat superior is a liability that can hold an employer liable for torts and negligence an employee commits during employment. The doctrine of respondeat states: "This principle makes an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts done by an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency." So, I do not agree with the modification because employers are responsible for any actions that are performed within operations. Additionally, the employer will pay consequences if not taking care of correctly. For example, Valerie Watts harmed a customer, and the employer took the right action to terminate the employee to avoid any litigation from the customer. If the employer did not receive the proper action against the assault, then the customer would have pursued a lawsuit against the store to shut it down. The customer would see it as an insult if the employer kept the employee who assaulted them. Reference: Clarkson, Miller, & Cross. (2018). Business Law (14th ed.). Cengage Learning US Legal, Inc. (n.d.). Respondeat Superior Doctrine Law and Legal Definition. Retrieved from https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/respondeat-superior-doctrine/