On March 17, 2019, Pepe Morel- the Vice President of Development for Le Pue SA (a French corporation), contacted Mary Q. Contrary to serve as Le Pue's agent. Le Pue is looking to expand into the American market. While Le Pue is known throughout Europe, they are just now looking to the booming American market. Le Pue was founded fifty years ago and is known for its highly regarded perfumes and colognes. Le Pue is looking to develop a line of scents that cater to American tastes. Le Pue's immediate need is to locate land and a building for their American plant. Mary Q. Contrary is one of the most successful commercial realtors in the Pacific Northwest. Le Pue asks Mary to work on their behalf in locating an appropriate facility in the Seattle area. Le Pue has agreed to pay Mary a monthly salary, provide her with a generous health insurance plan, and a company car. Mary accepts Le Pue's offer.

On March 25, Pepe Morel (on behalf of Le Pue) and Mary Contrary executed a written agreement detailing each party's duties and benefits. Pursuant to the terms of this contract, Mary was given authority to purchase land and a building for up to $1,000,000. Should Mary be unable to find the needed land and building for $1,000,000 or less, then the contract specified that Mary must first contact Pepe for further instructions. Mary's salary was set at $12,500 per month for six months. The contract specified that Mary would receive full medical, dental, vision and disability benefits. Mary would also receive a 2019 Tesla Model X.

On April 2, while driving to view property located in Bellevue, WA, Mary accidentally lost control of her car, which caused her to crash into a 2015 Ford Fiesta driven by Ms. Kitty Odorable. Other than substantial damage to the Tesla, Mary was uninjured. Unfortunately, Ms. Kitty Odorable was seriously injured - both of her legs were broken, there was internal bleeding and a concussion that resulted in a complete loss of memory. After three months of intensive therapy, Ms. Odorable was released from the hospital. At the time of the release, Ms. Odorable's memory was partially restored. It was estimated that Ms. Odorable would need 12 - 15 months of additional out-patient therapy.

On September 1, 2019, Ms. Odorable sued Le Pue SA claiming that LePue is liable based on the legal theory of vicarious liability (respondeat superior).

Is Le Pue liable for Ms. Odorable's injuries? What is the likely result.

Your analysis should be in the form of an IRAC (please see below). You should explore, in detail, the arguments each party will make. For purposes of this paper, the rule of law for vicarious liability (also known as respondeat superior) is defined as follows:

Respondeat Superior / vicarious liability:

1. Absent direct liability, the principal's liability for the agent's torts is heavily dependent on the employee-independent contractor distinction.
2. A principal is liable for the torts of agents:

1) Who are employees, and

2) Who commit the tort during the scope of their employment.

1. Scope of employment:

1) Act was the kind the employee was employed to perform,

2) It occurred during authorized working hours,

3) It occurred at authorized location, and

4) It was motivated by the purpose of serving the employer.