can you make this longer,In this scenario, Otis IS absolutely responsible for Doug's incident as well as his injuries. Kelly was an employee of Otis' and seems to really derive a sense of happiness and joy from her newfound employer. Even though it wasn't Otis or the bake shop who caused Doug to slip and fall, he will probably be held liable because he is he owner. Kelly should have put a "wet floor" sign up as she began to mop the floor so that customers and others would be made aware that a temporary hazard was within the business. This would have made sure that people were careful and cautious when walking across the freshly mopped, slippery floors. Because Kelly is the agent and Otis is the Principal, they have created their own agency. That makes Doug, the package delivery driver, a third party to their agency. It is because of this relationship that "an employer is liable for PHYSICAL torts negligently committed by an employee acting within the scope of employment" (Beatty, 1). And Kelly was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing-she was mopping the floors during her shift. Her mistake was a failure to exercise precaution and place signs indicating that the floors were wet and as a result, slippery and to please be careful when walking through that area. An old Latin adage, "let the master answer", or respondeat superior, is the principle that this rule is based on. It was because Kelly was acting within the scope of her employment, on the clock, and performing