Wilson v. Speedy Delivery Service & Garmin: FIRAC Scenario
Speedy Delivery Service, Inc. needed to hire a new driver for in-city deliveries. It advertised the position, reviewed resumes, and interviewed several applicants, including Annie Garmin. A trained truck driver, Annie had 10 years of experience driving the types of trucks that Speedy used. A lifelong resident of the city, Annie was also very familiar with the city and Speedy believed that she would be able to complete the required daily deliveries in a reasonable amount of time. After conducting a thorough background check on Annie that revealed no concerns about her driving record or fitness as a delivery driver, Speedy hired Annie Garmin as the new driver.
In her new position, Annie was required to work five days a week from 7 a.m. until 4 p.m., with an hour allowed for lunch. When she arrived at the Speedy distribution center each morning before 7, she would be assigned a truck that was already loaded and given a route to follow to make her deliveries for that day. Speedy paid all of its drivers (including Annie) a weekly salary and provided certain benefits, including two weeks’ vacation and 10 days of sick leave every year.
Then the pandemic hit and many more people turned to online shopping, significantly increasing Speedy’s business. Unable to hire enough new drivers to handle the increased number of deliveries, Speedy began adding more deliveries to the drivers’ daily schedules.
When the drivers complained that the additional deliveries lengthened their workday and that many were unable to complete their routes even by 7 p.m., Speedy increased driver salaries.
When she picked up her truck a few days later, Annie realized that she would need to work past 7 p.m. to make all her deliveries. At about 10 a.m. and already behind schedule, Annie came to an intersection controlled as a four-way stop. As she approached the stop sign, she didn’t notice other vehicles, reduced her speed to about 20 mph (in a 35 mph zone), and drove into the intersection.
Mimi Wilson was driving down the cross street toward the same intersection. She stopped at the stop sign and saw that Annie’s truck had begun slowing down and still had plenty of distance until it reached the stop sign. Assuming that Annie would stop, Mimi entered the intersection. Annie’s truck hit Mimi’s car broadside, injuring Mimi and causing extensive damage to her car.
Mimi has now sued Annie, as well as Speedy Delivery Company, seeking compensation for her injuries and the damage to her car. In her lawsuit, Mimi alleges that Speedy Delivery should be vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the injuries its employee, Annie Garmin, caused her.
Use the FIRAC model to fully analyze Mimi’s claims against both Annie AND Speedy Delivery Service, Inc.
Components of FIRAC (please include these headings)
Facts: identifying Material Facts see iCollege Critical Writing Through FIRAC
Issue(s): what issue will the court be deciding? Keep it short and unbiased.
Rule(s): a complete but concise statement of the relevant legal standards.
Application: an analysis of how the Rules apply to the relevant Facts. Make sure the relevant Facts you’re discussing are included in your Facts statement.
Conclusion: keep it short, just a concise summary of your Application. Don’t include personal opinions.
Organizing & Writing your Paper
12-point font, one-inch margins, double-spaced, add your (word count) at end of the Paper
Minimum length should be 650 words. If your paper is well-written and succinct, it could be a bit under this minimum.
Don’t do additional legal research. All the law you need for the Paper is from the readings in the book (p. 434), the slides, and the discussions in class.
Common errors in FIRAC include asserting personal opinions; introducing new Facts or Rules into your Application; and summarizing the entire analysis or application in a lengthy Conclusion.
Specific points for Wilson v. Speedy
The Issue to focus on is the employee’s liability for the tort (assume Annie is liable), AND whether the employer also is liable under the theory of respondeat superior.
The general rule is that individuals, including employees, are liable for their own torts, AND, if the employee was acting within the scope of employment, the employer may also be liable. The employee may be found to have acted within the scope of employment where the employer provides the equipment & processes for conducting the work; the incident occurred within the scope of work activities that benefit the employer, and it is reasonably foreseeable that such incidents (accidents) may occur during the course of the work (delivery driving).
For the optional Extra Credit section, consider whether Annie’s detour took her actions out of the scope of employment such that the employer would or would not be liable.
Extra-Credit (up to 10 points)
Assume these changed facts: On the day of the accident, Annie was ahead of schedule when she remembered that she had promised to help her sister move some furniture. Rather than following the route she had received that morning, she drove three blocks out of the way to go to her sister’s apartment. She was planning to pick up some furniture in the truck and then deliver it to her sister’s new apartment. Before she reached her sister’s apartment, she drove through the stop sign and hit Mimi’s car. Mimi again sues both Annie and Speedy. Does this change your analysis? If so, how? Will Speedy be liable to Mimi?
Write your EC answer beneath your FIRAC essay, clearly identifying it as the EC option. You do not need to conduct a full FIRAC analysis of this change to the scenario, but make sure you indicate any change(s) to the applicable legal rule(s) and how that might (or does) change your analysis and conclusion.