Multiple Choice
In the text case Mais,et al. ,v.Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America,the plaintiff sued claiming the defendant was responsible for acts of its former employee,even though he was not employed by the defendant at the time of the alleged acts.Which of the following was the result?
A) The defendant was not held liable because the former employee's act exceeded the scope of his employment.
B) The defendant was held vicariously liable for the acts of its former employee because it did not notify customers that the agent had been terminated.
C) The defendant was not held liable because the plaintiff should have known the employee was no longer employed by the defendant.
D) The defendant was held strictly liable because the nature of the acts involved were inherently dangerous.
E) The defendant was not held liable because it had no reason to know a former employee was stealing from its clients.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q44: List and define the two basic types
Q65: Agents who go beyond their authority when
Q75: [Furniture Store Woes] Connor was hired by
Q76: If an agent is acting within his
Q78: Regarding the relationship between a principal and
Q79: Even though the home did not meet
Q81: According to the text,which of the following
Q82: Which of the following specifies that the
Q83: Carlos wants to purchase a lot,owned by
Q84: A power of attorney is a special