Case study help for Business Law Class

[Will K]

Jurisdiction

California

Hey guys!

I have a case study that I would love some backing up and support for my business law class. I feel like I am on the right path and would like some confirmation and expert opinion on this topic. You may find this very vague but this topic is meant to be more general and not too in-depth. I greatly appreciate it!

This corporation is to be considered a De Facto Corporation and there are two officers. One of the officers was driving on a work matter and hit a pedestrian on his own negligence. Since this is a de facto corporation who would be liable, the officer or corporation for the injury?

My take is that since this is considered a de facto corporation and it was work-related that the corporation would be liable for damages and not the officer personally because of the limited liability protection that is provided.

 

[army judge]

Sorry, no one on this site has any interest in helping lazy students complete homework or school assignments!

Thread closed.

 

[Redemptionman]

Hey guys!

I have a case study that I would love some backing up and support for my business law class. I feel like I am on the right path and would like some confirmation and expert opinion on this topic. You may find this very vague but this topic is meant to be more general and not too in-depth. I greatly appreciate it!

This corporation is to be considered a De Facto Corporation and there are two officers. One of the officers was driving on a work matter and hit a pedestrian on his own negligence. Since this is a de facto corporation who would be liable, the officer or corporation for the injury?

My take is that since this is considered a de facto corporation and it was work-related that the corporation would be liable for damages and not the officer personally because of the limited liability protection that is provided.

You would be wrong, Of course, I can not remember coming to anonymous internet forums when I had to do cases studies for school.

 

[adjusterjack]

Reopened per Zddoodah's request.

 

[zddoodah]

Since this is a de facto corporation who would be liable, the officer or corporation for the injury?

I'm not familiar with the term "de facto corporation," so it might change my answer if you explain what it means.

That said, I suggest you research vicarious liability for tort committed in the course and scope of employment.

My take is that since this is considered a de facto corporation and it was work-related that the corporation would be liable for damages and not the officer personally because of the limited liability protection that is provided.

I think that's well-reasoned.

 

[flyingron]

It means that there was some technical defect in the way the corporation was created, but it was handled sufficiently as if it were to treat it as one in a legal action.

If the issue of it being a de facto corporation is already decided, the de facto part is irrelevant. You move on to whether the officer of a corporation is liable or not.

"Driving on a work matter" is too nebulous to determine if the corporation provides a liability shield. I suspect give such, the professor wants you to analyze it as to where the boundaries are. It will come down to whether the act that caused the damage was going to be ascribed to being taken in the corporate capacity or not.

A secondary issue is whether there is justification to pierce the corporate veil and go after the officer even in a corporate capacity.

You may wish to google "corporate capacity", "negligence", and "piercing the corporate veil" in various combinations along with the word California (if state-specific issues are necessary). Alternatively, you should have been paying attention more in class when the teacher gave hints on how to do research. Asking the internet forums to give you the answer was probably not what he had in mind.

 

[adjusterjack]

I'm not familiar with the term "de facto corporation,"

I'm surprised. Took me just a few seconds to look it up.

Legal recognition of a corporation, even if the articles of incorporation for a corporation are not properly filed. To be granted de facto corporation status, there must be: a relevant incorporation statute, a good faith attempt to comply with it, and evidence that the business is being run as corporation.

De Facto Corporation | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

 

[adjusterjack]

My take is that since this is considered a de facto corporation and it was work-related that the corporation would be liable for damages and not the officer personally because of the limited liability protection that is provided.

Sorry, that's wrong, based on the limited information that you provided.

First of all, doesn't matter if it's a corporation, de facto or otherwise. The question applies to the potential liability of any employer for the negligent acts of its employees.

Look up "vicarious liability" and "respondeat superior" (the "master-servant" rule).

Second, a person is always liable for his or her own acts of negligence.

Whether that liability can also be attributed to any other entity or person depends one details you have not provided.

Who owns the car? The business or the individual?

What was the employee doing on behalf of the employer?

Was this a one time thing or does the employee regularly drive for the business of his employer?

When was he doing it? Business hours? Lunch break? After hours?

How about you quote us the assignment as laid out by your instructor so we have all the details.

 

[flyingron]

It probably was quoted as given. The answer here isn't like a "yes or no" to whether the employee is liable, but a discussion on how to determine if he is or not.