PJC General Negligence 2022

A GENCY AND S PECIAL R ELATIONSHIPS

PJC 10.6

PJC 10.6

Scope of Employment

QUESTION ______ On the occasion in question, was Don Davis acting in the scope of his employment? An employee is acting in the scope of his employment if he is acting in the furtherance of the business of his employer. Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 10.6 inquires whether an alleged employee was acting in the scope of his employment. Under the principle of respondeat superior, the master is lia ble for a servant’s torts only if the servant was acting within the scope of his employ ment. See Leadon v. Kimbrough Bros. Lumber Co. , 484 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. 1972); Robertson Tank Lines v. Van Cleave , 468 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1971); J.C. Penney Co. v. Oberpriller , 170 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. 1943); Parmlee v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad , 381 S.W.2d 90 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). When to instruct on scope of authority. Generally, vicarious liability is imposed only for authorized action in the furtherance of an employer’s business. The element of general authority, however, is not included in PJC 10.6 because it is usually undis puted. If it is disputed, the phrase “and within the scope of the general authority given him by his employer” should be added at the end of the definition. See Broaddus v. Long , 138 S.W.2d 1057 (Tex. 1940). Defense to respondeat superior liability under Dramshop Act or common law. See PJC 5.6.

133