ABC Company has eight employees. Most of them are college graduates working on
advanced degrees in their off hours. As a matter of fact they are all part-time law
students. However, three of them are mentally challenged. The three in this category
know little or nothing about the law. ABC Company is part of the fast food industry.
Employees work at a fast pace and often become frustrated. In fact one of them got
upset one evening because in his opinion there were never enough fries on hand to
meet customer demands. On that same evening, a customer pulled up to the drive thru
window and ordered 10 extra large fries. The mentally challenged employee became
angry. He became so angry that he reached through the window and battered the
customer. He was charged with battery but found not guilty on the basis of just being
stupid. He was then sued civilly. The jury found for the plaintiff and a judgment was
entered against the employee individually. ABC was also sued as part of the same
proceeding.
Question #1 Is ABC liable for the acts of this employee? Question #2 Must ABC indemnify the employee given that the employee did not know
that his act was tortious? Hint: In his deposition, the employee stated that did not know what a tort or a battery
was. He said the following: "The only battery I gots is in my car and it don’t even work,
It is dead. What would someone want with a dead battery" " I commits that battery to
nobody. I own it."
