Under what doctrine discussed in this chapter might Buy-Mart be held liable for the tort committed by Watts? What is the key factor in determining whether Buy-Mart is liable under this doctrine? How is Buy-Mart’s potential liability affected by whether Watts’s behavior constituted an intentional tort or a tort of negligence? Suppose that when Watts applied for the job at Buy-Mart, she disclosed in her application that she had previously been convicted of felony assault and battery. Nevertheless, Buy-Mart hired Watts as a cashier. How might this fact affect Buy-Mart’s liability for Watts’s actions?

Explanation:

1) Buy-Mart must be held liable for the tort committed by Watts under the doctrine of "respondent superior".

The assumption under this doctrine is that the employers are in a better position to absorb the cost which arises from employees' tort. So, in this case, the superior/employer is liable for the actions of its employees or agents who have committed torts.

2)  The key factor in the scenario under consideration is the doctrine of respondent superior, as the employer is responsible for the torts which are committed by the employees in the scope /course of employment.

3) Buy-mart will be accountable in intentional tort and in the tort of negligence because the doctrine of respondent superior does not distinguish between two. Walmart's behavior is wrong in the scope of employment so Buy Mart is responsible.

4) In this scenario, Buy mart is responsible. An employer already knows or should know that the employee has the tendency to commit tortious acts is responsible for the employee action even if the act is not within the scope of employment. So, as watt action was not in the scope of employment, Buy Mart would be responsible for the same.

answer; the correct answer to the above statement is (true);