Daniel and Sondra Estelle hired Allenâ??s firm to renovate a home they owned in Ladoga, Indiana. To finance the cost, they obtained a line of credit from Banc One, Indiana, which required periodic inspections to disburse funds. Allen was on the job every day and supervised all of the work. He designed all of the structural changes, including a floor system for the bedroom over the living room, the floor system of the living room, and the stairway to the second floor. He did all of the electrical, plumbing, and carpentry work and installed all of the windows. He did most of the drywall taping and finishing and most of the painting. The Estellesâ?? found much of this work to be unacceptable, and the bankâ??s inspector
agreed that is was of poor quality. When Allen failed to act on the Estelleâ??s complaints, they filed a suit in an Indiana State court against Allen Construction and Allen personally, alleging in part that his individual work on the project was negligent. Can both Allen and his corporation be held liable for this tort? Explain.
[Greg Allen Construction C. v. Estelle, 798 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2003)]
Here is some information that might help you get started...good luck!!
Allen and his corporation cannot be held liable for the tort of negligence. The theory of negligence protects interests related to safety or freedom from physical harm, including not only personal injuries, but also damage caused by defective personal property. Where there is no accident, and no physical damage, and the only loss is a pecuniary one, through loss of value - or the cost of repairing it, the courts have adhered to the rule - that purely economic interests are not entitled to protection against mere ...
The distinction between contract and tort is presented.
Little Lamb Company needs an additional programmer for a special project. The company enters into a contract with Mary to complete this project. Just as the project is nearing completion, a new need arises for her services. She is asked to continue with the company to complete the new project. While completing the new project, the supervisor begins working more closely with Mary and requires her to use company materials and equipment while adhering to company work schedules. After two years, economic conditions force the company to make budget cuts. Mary is asked to leave. Thirty days later, a major contract is acquired by the company, which reinstates the need for Mary's services as a programmer. However, the supervisor chooses to hire his equally-qualified cousin and not offer Mary the opportunity to return.
1) Is Mary an independent contractor or an employee? Describe the factors that led to your determination.
2) Has the employer/employee relationship changed over the course of time? If so, how?
3) Was Mary's release legal under the doctrine of employment-at-will? Why or why not? If not, which of the following exceptions to employment-at-will have been violated? Why?
a) Breach of public policy
b) Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
c) Breach of implied contractView Full Posting Details