NOTE: For Project $4,$ all students are taking an assessment to evaluate the content learned in this course. Please answer the following; make sure you fully describe the legal principle and apply the facts to reach your conclusion. $($My apology for the late revision here, but just received. I have extended the due date.$)$

Debbie is a HACC student at HACC. She works part$-$time as the $$HACC Hawk$.$ She dresses up in a giant bird suit, and attends campus events at the request of HACC Student Affairs personnel. Paul is a new student who attends HACC orientation. During the orientation, Debbie is performing as the HACC Hawk. Debbie gets bored and decides to have some fun. She wildly flaps her arms to generate school spirit. While flapping her arms, Joann strikes Paul, knocking him to the ground and causing him injuries. Discuss and Explain your answers to both of the following questions.

a$.$ Assume Debbie was negligently flapping. Analyze whether Paul can sue HACC for the injuries he sustained when Debbie negligently knocked him down.

b$.$ Assume Debbie was bored that thought it would be fun to intentionally flap her arms into Paul. Analyze whether Paul can sue HACC for the injuries he sustained if Debbie intentionally knocked him down.

Here is the Rubric:

Assessment Rubric for Agency Question

EXCELLENT SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY

Part A: Injuries caused by the negligence of an employee

Discusses the doctrine of Respondeat Superior and the legal concept of vicarious liability of an employer for injuries caused by the negligence of an employee acting within the scope of their employment, and fully applies the facts to the law.

Identifies either the doctrine of Respondeat Superior or the rule of vicarious liability of an employer for the negligence of an employee acting within the scope of their employment with a cursory application of facts to the law.

Does not refer to Respondeat Superior or vicarious liability. Does not discuss whether Debbie was acting withing the scope of her employment.

Part B: Injuries caused by the intentional torts of an employee while at work.

Identifies the two legal theories for intentional torts by agents acting within the course of their employment, and fully analyzes whether they apply.

The Motivation test:

If agent$$s motivation in committing intentional tort is to promote the principal$$s business, and

Work$-$related test:

If agent committed an intentional tort within a work$-$related time or space.

Identifies either the Motivation Test or the Work$-$Related Test and completes a cursory application of the facts to the law.

Does not identify either of the two legal tests and has only conclusions without analysis.