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 life-long 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 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. 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.

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?

PLEASE USE FIRAC METHOD TO ANALYZE, WILL MAKE SURE YOU GET MULTIPLE UPVOTES IF YOU DO! THANKS!