home

Case Theory- 25/25 Witness Objections- 0 /15 Where are the objections located?? Witness Exhibits- 15 /15 Team Roster- 10/10 Direct and cross exams are missing. 1/5/09 @ 8 p.m.

Reilly Blaker, who killed Jaya Hansbra, has a history of being an irresponsible employee. His previous employer, PharmaCom, hired Reilly as vice president/senior marketing director. Reilly's position was to lead a marketing team for a new opiate-based narcotic called Drostoveral. Reilly, against company policy, began taking samples of this drug and became addicted. Once, at a PharmaCom holiday party, Reilly not only took these narcotics illegally, but proceeded to drink and then drive home. He received a DUI and was fired immediately. He remained unemployed until he was hired by Plane's Park and Polish. Reilly Blaker was hired by Planes Park and Polish in late October of 2007 as a valet, upon employment, Reilly signed a memorandum of understanding ( a document stating that Reilly agreed with his terms of employment) that stipulated his terms of employment as a valet, and that he agreed to the company manual. The manual which Reilly Baker legally agreed to was blatantly disregarded by Reilly on more than one occasion. Sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.5 outlaw joy riding, drug and alcohol use on the job, and unauthorized use of the company car for a joyride, he tampered with the ticket stub with the vehicles mileage in order to conceal his wrong doing. Reilly also used the company credit card without permission, violating company rules. He would have been fired at once, had Parker plane known, but he was left in the dark.

Reilly investigated this whole incident by lying to his cousin Brody about his position at PP&P, saying he was president of the company, and encouraging a business relationship without the authority to do so. He bribed his co-worker Dylan Sabien with $1000 in order to cover himself, and made sure Parker Plane was completely unaware of this whole deal. When Reilly went out to lunch with Brody without Parkers permission, not only did he steal the company car and credit card, but he was drinking and driving on the job. These actions concluded with a DUI and the death of Jaya Hansbra at Reilly's hands.

According to respondeat superior, a company is liable for the actions of an employee if and only if the following 3 conditions apply: 1) the act was of a kind and nature the employee was employed to perform, 2) whether the act occurred substantially within the time and space limits, 3) whether the act was set in motion, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. It is clear in this case that Reilly Blaker, as a valet, was not employed to conduct business negotiations. The "business lunch" where Jaya was killed was not within the reasonable time and space limits of the company as shown in Exhibit 1. Reilly was self-serving through this whole deal, using lies and bribery to further his own poisition at the company.