Parkway Distributors is a wholesale firm that employs several outside salespersons. Emily, a salesperson employed by Parkway Distributors, was involved in an accident with another motorist while she was using her car to make regular sales calls for Parkway Distributors. Emily and the motorist are seriously injured in the accident. The motorist sues both Emily and Parkway Distributors for the injury based on negligence. 1. Describe the requirements that the motorist must establish to show that Emily is guilty of negligence. 2. On what legal basis might Parkway Distributors be held legally liable for the injury to the motorist? Explain your answer. b. Tom asks his girlfriend, Megan, to go to a supermarket and purchase some steaks for dinner. While driving Tom’s car to the supermarket, Megan failed to stop at a red light and seriously injured a pedestrian. Does Tom have any legal liability for the injury? Explain your answer.

1. Requirements to Establish Negligence by Emily (Parkway Distributors' Salesperson):

To prove negligence, the motorist suing Emily needs to establish the following elements:

• Duty of Care: Emily owed a duty of care to others while operating a vehicle for work purposes. As a salesperson employed by Parkway Distributors, she has a duty to drive safely and responsibly during work-related activities.
• Breach of Duty: The motorist must demonstrate that Emily breached this duty of care by failing to exercise reasonable care while driving. This could involve actions like speeding, reckless driving, distracted driving, or any behavior that deviates from what a reasonably prudent person would do in similar circumstances.
• Causation: The motorist needs to show that Emily's breach of duty directly caused the accident and resulting injuries. The accident occurred due to Emily's negligent actions while she was conducting sales calls for Parkway Distributors.
• Damages: Finally, the motorist must have suffered actual damages, such as physical injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, or pain and suffering, as a result of the accident caused by Emily's negligence.

2. Legal Basis for Parkway Distributors' Liability:

Parkway Distributors might be held legally liable under the legal doctrine of "vicarious liability" or "respondeat superior." This doctrine holds employers responsible for the actions of their employees if those actions occurred within the scope of their employment.

• Scope of Employment: If Emily was conducting regular sales calls for Parkway Distributors when the accident occurred, her use of the car for work-related purposes could be considered within the scope of her employment.
• Agency Relationship: Since Emily was acting as an agent of Parkway Distributors while performing her job duties, the company may be held vicariously liable for her negligence, assuming it occurred during the course of her employment.
• b. Tom's Liability for Megan's Actions: Whether Tom has legal liability for Megan's actions depends on the legal principles in the jurisdiction and the circumstances surrounding the incident.
• Vicarious Liability: In some cases, if Megan was using Tom's car with his permission and within the scope of her duties for him (running an errand), Tom might be held vicariously liable for her negligent actions under the doctrine of vicarious liability or agency law.
• Owner Liability: Additionally, some jurisdictions have "owner liability" laws that hold vehicle owners responsible for any damages caused by someone driving their vehicle with their permission, regardless of whether the owner was present or directly involved.

The determination of Tom's liability would involve assessing the specific facts, nature of Megan's relationship with Tom, whether she was acting within the scope of her errand, and the applicable laws in the jurisdiction where the accident occurred.