MGMT520 Week 5 Discussion 1 Mr Mapp against Gimbels Department Store Case

Question: #9376

MGMT520 Week 5 Discussion 1 Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store Case Please read problem 3 at the end of Chapter 17 regarding the lawsuit by alleged thief Mr. Mapp against Gimbels Department Store. Under what theory might Mr. Mapp argue that Gimbels is liable for the assault committed against Mapp by Mr. DiDomenico, an employee of J.C. Penney's? Would Mr. Mapp be successful under the theory you chose? Why or why not? 3. On March 29, 1983, Barry Mapp was observed in the JCPenney department store in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, by security personnel, who suspected that he might be a shoplifter. Michael DiDomenico, a security guard employed by JCPenney, followed Mr. Mapp when he left the store and proceeded to Gimbels department store. There, Mr. DiDomenico notified Rosemary Federchok, a Gimbels security guard, about his suspicions. Even though his assis- tance was not requested, Mr. DiDomenico decided to remain to assist in case Ms. Federchok, a short woman of slight build, required help in dealing with Mr. Mapp if he committed an offense in Gimbels. It came as no surprise when Mr. Mapp was observed taking items from the men’s department of the store; when he attempted to escape, he was pursued. Although Ms. Federchok was unable to keep up, Mr. DiDomenico continued to pursue Mr. Mapp and ultimately apprehended him in the lower level of the Gimbels parking lot. When Ms. Federchok arrived with Upper Darby police, merchandise that had been taken from Gimbels was recovered. Mr. Mapp, who had been injured when he jumped from one level of the parking lot to another, was taken to the Delaware County Memorial Hospital, where he was treated for a broken ankle. Mr. Mapp filed suit against Gimbels for injuries sustained while being chased and apprehended by Mr. DiDomenico. He alleged in his complaint that Mr. DiDomenico, while acting as an agent of Gimbels, had chased him, had struck him with a nightstick, and had beaten him with his fists. Gimbels says it is not liable because Mr. DiDomenico was not its agent. Is Gimbels correct? [Mapp v Gimbels Dep’t Store, 540 A.2d 941 (Pa. 1988)] It is settled law that a principal may be held responsible for the tortious (wrongful) actions of an employee for acts carried out in the course of and within the scope of employment. (See in your text, Lange v. National Biscuit Co) On the other hand, it will be more difficult to hold a principal responsible for the actions of a party not its agent. When looking at this case, what theory might Mr. Mapp use to argue that Gimbel's is liable for the assault committed against him by Mr. DiDomenico, an employee of J.C. Penney's? How will Gimbels counter that argument? An employer may be held vicariously liable for the conduct of employee within the scope of employment. As you can imagine, the amount of case law generated in defining scope of employment is staggering. So, what does scope of employment mean? What about travel to and from work? What about travel for work? What about the issuance of a company car or cell phone--what factors impact a court's decision that scope of employment exists? What factors impact whether express or apparent agency exists? What if Mr. D. was wearing a security guard uniform, for example. Does this matter to our analysis?

Solution: #9413

MGMT520 Week 5 Discussion 1 Mr Mapp against Gimbels Department Store Case

A+ Please look at the attach...