Quik Meds hired Frank as a delivery driver. Because there was a backlog of deliveries, the company allowed Frank to work pending the outcome of his background investigation. Shortly after he was hired, Frank was caught stealing a customer's purse. The customer was injured in the scuffle over her purse. The customer later sued Quik Meds for negligent hiring. Quik Meds defended itself by arguing it was not liable for an employee's actions. Is this a viable defense?

Complete/Correct Question:

Quik Meds hired Frank as a delivery driver. Because there was a backlog of deliveries, the company allowed Frank to work pending the outcome of his background investigation. Shortly after he was hired, Frank was caught stealing a customer's purse. The customer was injured in the scuffle over her purse. The customer later sued Quik Meds for negligent hiring. Quik Meds defended itself by arguing it was not liable for an employee's actions. Is this a viable defense?

Select one:

a. Yes, because employees are liable for their own torts.

b. Yes, because Frank was not acting on behalf of Quik Meds when he engaged in the misconduct.

c. No, because Quik Meds failed to conduct a background search on Frank.

d. No, because Quik Meds is strictly liable for employee on-the-job conduct.

C, No, because Quik Medds failed to conduct a background search on Frank.

Explanation:

The defense of Quik Meds in the case of their customer against the company is not viable. This is because the result of the background checks on Frank had not returned or background check before he was employed. This means that if the Quik Meds were patient enough for the background check to have concluded, he might have been found out and no employed but Quik Med.

Cheers.

answer; (consensus);

b. condominum i think