¶ … tort liability BUG may have to the vendor and to the BUG employees that were attacked.
A defendant who engages an independent contractor, such as a head of the shipping dock, is not liable to others for the acts or omissions of the independent contractor. In this case, the person in charge of supervising shipping dock could be argued to be fault for improper security and vigilence. "An independent contractor is a person who performs services for another person under an express or implied agreement and who is not subject to the other's control, or right to control, over the manner and means of performing the services." (Tort Liability Basics: Strict, Vicarious, and Joint Liability," 1999) However, the BUG company owns the dock, and is thus responsible for maintaining the security of the facility, and ensuring the safety of the goods on the premises, and would likely be found liable for the loss of merchandie and injury due to the robbery. Vicarious liability imposes liability on one person for an illegal or tortious act committed by another, such as the negligent conduct of the dockyard worker under BUG's employ. Tort Liability Basics: Strict, Vicarious, and Joint Liability," 1999)
Question B
What defenses may be available to BUG?
BUG could argue that neither the dockyard worker not BUG security measures were not negligent, that security was adequate, and the incident was much like a car accident, making it the fault of the driver or robber, not BUG's inability to protect the employee of the vendor company. However, even if a car accident occurs "while the employee was driving from his office to a client's site," on a professional matter, the employer will likely be liable for the accident, thus BUG's legal fate does not look salutory. (Tort Liability Basics: Strict, Vicarious, and Joint Liability," 1999)
Works Cited
Tort Liability Basics: Strict, Vicarious, and Joint Liability." (Nov 1999) Findlaw. Retrieved 16 Sept 2006 at http://www.inc.com/articles/1999/11/15396.html
