SOURCES:Thank you for the paper however I need to cite any references and it appears that this was not dine with the reference to "Sharp" towards the end of the first second paragraph. i have been marked down in the past due to improper citation of refere

Legal Principles in Employment

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliations

Legal Principles in Employment

Liability for the actions of employees has been a great debate for many occasions where a case concerning the issue arises. When the employees are stated by a company to be liable for their own actions, it would at some occasions be unfair to the employees as the faults could not be as a result of their negligence. At other occasions, as well, the fault could be as a result of the employee’s negligence or intentions and placing the liability on the employer would be highly unjustifiable. Due to such uncertainties, the legal principles that govern such situations provide a guide to how the situations should be ruled. The principles also help settle the argument of who to place the liability on between the employee and their employer. Using the principles, it becomes easier to decide what actions place the liability on the employer and which implicate the employee.

In the case of Dave’s actions, they are hard to decide jointly as they do not happen under the same circumstances. Before the company employed Dave, it did not do any criminal background checks on him to see what crimes he would most likely commit in the line of work. Dave’s past crime consisted of s fistfight with a co-worker and he exhibited the possibility of committing a crime of violence with his hotheaded character. The company did not, however, consider acting on the possibility of him committing such a crime which makes them liable to the violence that Dave engaged in by punching Victor. According to Sharp crimes committed by employees can hold employers liable depending on the actions available that they would have taken to avoid the incidences. The company could hence be held liable for having Dave’s violence as it employed him without considering the possible challenges he could bring the company. The company should, therefore, be held liable for Dave’s act of punching Victor.

On the occasion of negligently causing a car accident, Dave could be held responsible for the act. Dave’s past does not include any accidents or negligence and the company could term it as an accident. An accident is also unlikely to happen intentionally which indicates that Dave was not driving careful enough and that his carelessness led to the occurrence of the accident involving Victor’s car. Causing the accident as well cannot be asserted to be as a result of negligence which gives Dave the chance to explain the occurrence of the accident. Unlike the situation where he punched Victor, the accident could not be proved as an act of Dave’s hot head and could be concluded to be unintentional. Therefore, it would be more appropriate having Dave liable for the accident and not his employer.

In conclusion, therefore, the legal principles can be said to provide a guidance on how to decide situations involving employers and their employees. Legal principles that govern the decisions on who should take responsibility for a given action play an important role of providing laws when the situations in questions are not under regulation by any written law. In cases where there is no clarity on the situation, the legal principles applying to employee actions can be used to settle the issue of who is responsible for which action. In the case of Dave, the principle enables a decision to be made on each of his action, determining who is liable for each of his actions.