written response to problem

For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.

One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.

For most problems you should be able to answer in a page or less, e.g. I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.

company when it assigned an employee a company vehicle to drive. Performance hired Cory Weese as an apprentice plumber. Weese had completed an employment appli- cation in which he stated that he had a valid driver's license and had not been cited for traffic violations. These statements were untrue. His license had been suspended because of numerous traffic violations, in- cluding careless driving and driving without a license. Because he would not be assigned a company vehicle, Performance hired Weese without checking to see whether his statements on the application were true. About a year after hiring Weese, Performance had his personal truck equipped with a rack for transporting pipe from construction trailers to work sites. Therefore, Performance intended that Weese drive during the day for the company, though it evidently did not check on his driving record at that time because he was not being assigned a company vehicle. (Weese's license appar- ently had been reinstated before Performance had the pipe rack installed on his truck, however.) On a later date, when Weese's work hours had ended and he was driving home, his truck collided with two cars. The col- lision resulted solely from Weese's negligence. Carolyn Raleigh and her son were severely injured in the colli- sion. They sued Performance. (Weese was liable to the Raleighs, of course, but this question pertains to their claims against Performance.) The Raleighs alleged two theories of recovery against Performance: respon- deat superior (the doctrine under which an employer is liable for a tort committed by its employee if the tort was committed within the scope of employment) and negligent hiring. Was Performance liable on respondeat superior grounds? Was Performance liable on negligent hiring grounds? 5. Performance Plumbing and Heating (Performance) was in the business of installing water and sewer plumb- ing at Denver-area constitution sites. Unless assigned a company vehicle, Performance employees used their own vehicles to commute to and from work. Because employees were sometimes expected to drive for the company during the workday in order to transport job materials and company tools from Performance's construction trailers to job sites (and vice versa), Per- formance required employment applicants to hold a valid driver's license. However, Performance relied on the applicant's truthfulness in stating whether he held a valid license. Performance checked driver's licenses and driving records only as required by its insurance