EMPLOYER'S DUTY OF CARE

Employer's Duty of Care

Employer's Duty of Care

1.Explain whether Jake's actions are in or out of “his scope of employment.”

Usually, a member of staff owes the company tasks and responsibilities of compliance and performance. Moreover, beneath their duties of performance, there is an implied provision that workers will employ rational attentiveness and ability in conducting their duties. Another responsibility is also obligatory for a member of staff to pursue every legal and evidently declared directions of the company (Peter and Atiyah, 2006). Any divergence from such orders supposed to be an infringement of that task or responsibility. If the orders are not visibly declared, the member of staff could execute the responsibility of compliance by doing the work in greater devotion and in such a way that is sensible and rational according to the situation.

In the given script, Jake has been directed by Herman that he is "just supposed to change the oil...” Testing the brakes, transmission, and tires are not Jake's part of duty as said by Herman. Therefore, apparently it seems that the violation of responsibilities associated with Jake. On the other hand, Jake disputes that since he is a licensed mechanic, there are certain principles that he needs to follow. In addition, Jack also argued that his dealings are rational and justified under that situation.

The question, whether Jake is acting in the range of service is a factual query to be determined by judges. However, under the mentioned situation, and that the superseding cause that Jake is operating on the cars in the principal place is Herman's free oil change, it would become visible that he is within the span of his service or employment.

2.Explain whether or not Herman is responsible for Jake's injury.

Of course, Jake sheltered underneath state personnel's compensation regulations. Under the ...