Carz Baazar Case Incident:

Findings and Recommendations for Colossal Corporation

Michael Knight

University of Maryland Global Campus

MBA 630: Leading in the Multicultural Global Environment

Professor Bruce Barnard

26 October 26, 2021

Carz Baazar Case Incident: Findings and Recommendations

Abstract
The case incident for the the Carz Bazaar vehicle within the accident and

subsequent claim for the liability of the injuries sustained by driver and passenger,

named plaintiffs hereafter; and detailing the arguments for plaintiffs and for Carz

Bazaar, hereafter named defendants. This will detail the ability of the said plaintiffs to

receive recompense for the sustained injuries by an employee named Charles Wilson

while driving a company vehicle conducting non-sanctioned personal and leisure

activities. The first portion of arguments for plaintiffs outlines why they might be able

receive favorable judgement and facts supporting this claim.

Conversely, within the second part is the arguments for the defendant which

details the facts supporting the dismissal in favor of the Carz Bazaar company

withholding liability for said accident. The conclusion of this paper details why the

courts should favor the defendant versus the plaintiff and legal recourses that the

plaintiff will conduct after a judicial ruling for the defendant.

Carz Baazar Case Incident: Findings and Recommendations

Part I: Arguments for the Plaintiffs

As for the plaintiffs, they are victims within the incident. There was a clear tort

directed against them from Charlie Wilson, an employee of Carz Bazaar, in their

company vehicle. While the circumstances of why Charlie was in the vehicle can be

addressed they become second to the company vehicle driven by a company employee

being involved in the vehicle accident. We will establish the facts surrounding the case,

and demonstrate the arguments for the plaintiffs as to why they could receive a

favorable judgement regarding this case (LII, N.D.).

First, Charlie Wilson was hired as an employee, to be a worker exclusively for

Carz Bazaar, and to act as a General Agent within his assigned scope to drive vehicles

off of the car lot for various reasons and as such had access to vehicle keys. Secondly,

there was an express agreement made between the principal, Carz Bazaar and the

agent, Charlie Wilson, which confers the authority upon the agent operating company

vehicles during the workday, regardless of the time of day or circumstances surrounding

it (Business Professor, N.D.). Third, an agent’s liability is limited towards third parties

such as vehicle accidents if it is within the scope of authority due to implied authority on

behalf of the principal-agent relationship already previously established.

Fourth, it is important to look at the proximate cause of the event and to see if an

efficient intervening cause would have negated the accident. An employee taking a

vehicle from a lot and moving it around town would not have any been any more or less

efficient by them filling out paperwork that was not completed nor would the company

policies and procedures effected them not to drive around town at various hours within

the workday. With this established the proximate cause of the accident (Findlaw, N.D.)
Carz Baazar Case Incident: Findings and Recommendations

could be attributed to Carz Bazaar the principal who underwrites the liability of

employees such as Charles Wilson.

Finally, we see that the principal’s liability is extended for actions taken by their

agent are within the scope of the agency which includes them to be jointly and severally

liable for the actions which caused the incident in which two unassuming and unaware

victims were impacted. By having the joint and several liability within the lawsuit it

enable the plaintiffs to receive recompense from Carz Bazaar while having named

Charlie Wilson as an agent within its principal agency (LII, N.D.). It would be that Carz

Bazaar would have to fight Charlie for any damages that the plaintiffs would receive and

provide the widest array of options to enable the defendant to receive a favorable

outcome within the court system.

Carz Baazar Case Incident: Findings and Recommendations

Part II: Arguments for the Defendant

While the accident was unfortunate for the plaintiffs and it is always sad to hear

that someone was injured, it nevertheless becomes important to establish who did what

to whom, how and where. These factors are the basis to determine proximate cause

liability of parties involved inasmuch as it is to determine responsibility of said actions

leading up to these events.

As we dissect the actions, paramount to establishing liability is the relationship

dynamics between the plaintiffs and the defendants. First, a Carz Bazaar Employee

within a Carz Bazaar Vehicle injured individuals by rear-ending them during a weekday

lunch. It then becomes important to determine the principal-Agent relationship between

the employees and the company, and the duty to indemnify agents within their scope of

responsibility (Burns, 2011).

Looking at the actions as a whole coupled with employees, we see many points

of deviation that separated these agents from their duties and the employer’s duty to

indemnify (UMGC, 2021). Charles Wilson broke loyalty by acting for personal benefit at

the principal’s expense; visit family using company vehicle.

Additionally the lack of information and disclosure both to his supervisor and

towards company policy are clear deviations from the principal-agent relationship which

was established when he became an employee.

Furthermore, regarding this tort liability is the frolic and detour clearly establishes

that Charlie Wilson abandoned the Carz Bazaar business objectives and pursued his

own personal interests, which relieves the company of any liability. Simply put Carz

Bazaar is not liable even under the Respondeat Superior (LII, N.D.) due to the fact that

it fails to establish either the benefits test or the characteristics test due to the employee
Carz Baazar Case Incident: Findings and Recommendations

actions not being sanctioned, required or otherwise permitted. The fact his boss did not

know he was taking the vehicle out further shows the dissonance from his actions to the

company’s responsibility and liability.

Carz Baazar Case Incident: Findings and Recommendations

Findings and Recommendations

Concluding these facts and subsequent legal findings it is important that I

recommend that Carz Baazar will not be held liable for the rogue actions of its agent

Charles Wilson, for breaking protocol and the liability and responsibility to indemnify our

agent ended when he used frolic and detour to break his duty of loyalty coupled with

lack of information and disclosure to his supervisor while using company resources for

personal gain (UMGC, 2021). Without the company ties established to the actions of

Charlie Wilson, we can expect to be recused from the liability associated with vehicle

accident and expect our agent to be held personally responsible for his actions, which

he undertook of his own volition.

I also recommend that we look at enhanced retraining for employees that are

supposed to safeguard practices, like Gina Mitchell, and others that are supposed to

enforce compliance with our safety protocols. If Charles was enroute to complete

company tasks, we would be fully liable for our agent’s actions, this should also serve

as a cautionary tale to other employees to do the right thing lest they are personally

liable for their actions.

Carz Baazar Case Incident: Findings and Recommendations

References
Burns, J.J. (2011). Respondent Superior as an Affirmative Defense: How Employers
Immunize Themselves from Direct Negligence Claims. Michigan Law Review Vol 109.
i4. Retrieved 2021 from, https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1168&context=mlr
Findlaw's Supreme Court of Virginia Case and opinions. Findlaw. (n.d.). Retrieved
October 27, 2021, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1620231.html.
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Joint and Several. LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Respondeat Superior. LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior
UMGC. (2021). Agency and Liability. Leo Content. Retrieved 2021, from
https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/scor/uncurated/mba/2218-mba630/learning-
resourcelist1/agency-and-liability.html?ou=610249
Scope of the principal agent relationship - explained. The Business Professor, LLC.
(N.D.). Retrieved October 27, 2021, from
https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/agency-law/what-is-the-scope-of-the-principal-
agent-relationship.