1

1) A few days later, Sam calls the hairdresser and tells him he can’t stop thinking

about what happened; that the hairdresser could have killed him and that he is going to

sue the hairdresser because it is the hairdresser’s responsibility to make sure his barber

pole is mounted safely. In this case, did the hairdresser commit a tort? If so, was it an

intentional tort or an unintentional tort? Explain your reasoning.

According to Mayer (2012), “a tort is usually defined as a wrong for which the law

will provide a remedy, most often in the form of money damages” (p 247). Tort is simply

explained as a way for plaintiffs who have suffered injury or loss because of the actions of

others, be it an individual or business, to be compensated. Tort can either be intentional tort

or negligent tort.

Intentional tort as its name implies is anything done with an intent to cause harm.

Negligent tort, also known as unintentional tort, is done out of carelessness or with no regard

to any unintended party. Then there’s also strict liability tort which explicitly makes clear that

a defendant can be held liable even though the defendant has exercised “all possible care”

and that the plaintiff does not need to show “fault” (Mayer, 2012).

2) What kind of legal structure do you think you should switch to in order to help

persuade your friends and family members to invest in your business? Explain.

As my friends’ hesitation to invest in my business is because of my current legal

structure as a sole proprietorship, choosing a limited partnership would be the ideal

arrangement. A general partnership would have to be ruled out since they do not want to be

held liable for any debt or legal actions brought forth against me. As my friends do not want

to deal with the taxes involved in dividend payouts from stocks, then any type of corporation

would be ruled out as well.

 2

3) Are you personally liable for this bill, or is it only the corporation that is liable

since you are a CEO and the incident happened during a business trip for the

corporation?

Under the rule of vicarious liability, Mayer (2012) states that the “employer is

responsible for the negligence of his employees if they were acting in the scope of

employment.” This is also known as respondeat superior, which translates to, “the higher

authority must respond to claims brought against one of its agents” (Mayer 2012).

With that said, although the incident did occur on a business trip, it happened after

business hours. The events that unfolded after the business conference had nothing to do with

the business itself. If any type of business dealings had occurred while we were at the hotel

bar, I may have been able to write those off as business expenses, but as it happens, we were

just relaxing and unwinding. Going back up to my hotel room to continue to party and raid

the mini bar was not part of the reason I was sent to Hawaii in the first place. Therefore, I am

personally liable for the damages I caused which amounted to the $50,000 bill.