WRITING ASSIGNMENT Papers should be 3-4 pages in length, 12-point font, double spaced, with reasonable margins. Do not restate the questions in your paper. You should (a) identify the relevant issues, (b) determine the applicable rules and principles from the text, (c) analyze how the rules and principles specifically apply to the given set of facts, and (d) state a concise and well-reasoned conclusion that logically follows from your analysis. TEXTING CAN BE DANGEROUS In the state of Tennessee, the Multitrack Railroad Company (MRC) operates various passenger railroad lines. MRC owns the railroad cars, and it possesses the right to lay track and travel over various portions of the state. The Maguire Company provides conductors and other personnel to operate and maintain the trains running in Tennessee. It has a contractual relationship with multiple railroads, including MRC, to do so. MRC requires Maguire employees to pass a training course in safety provided by MRC. One day, one of Maguire's conductors is operating an MRC train. He has passed the course noted above 5 years earlier, and MRC has possession of a copy of his certificate. This conductor enjoys texting people from the front of the train while he is operating it. He has even allowed some of those people to ride with him on occasion. Both the rides and the texting are prohibited by both MRC and Maguire. The conductor is aware of that fact, but engages in the conduct anyway. On this particular day, while he is texting one of the people that has ridden with him in the past, the conductor fails to see a red light indicating that the track up ahead is occupied by another train. In such circumstances, his training would require him to bring his own train to a stop until the other train would clear the track in front of him. However, the MRC train continues at top speed. By the time the conductor sees the other train, it is too late. A head on collision occurs in which both trains are derailed and multiple passengers are injured or killed. The conductor is killed in the collision. It is the worst accident of its kind in Tennessee history. Many lawsuits are filed against both Maguire and MRC. MRC claims that the conductor is an independent contractor, not an employee. To back up its claim, MRC asserts that it does not get involved in the details of how conductors do their jobs but instead leaves that up to Maguire. MRC also provides documentation showing that it never has paid Social Security or withholding for this particular conductor. Maguire (who does not want to be the sole source of settlement funds or judgments in these cases) claims that MRC is wrong because it is MRC rather than Maguire that provides the training for the conductors.Please comment on the following questions and integrate the text readings into your answers: 1. Was the conductor an employee or independent contractor of MRC at the time of the collision? Why or why not? What factors would you analyze to make your determination? 2. The IRS takes the position that the conductor was an employee of MRC. Accordingly, it demands payment of thousands of dollars from MRC for past-due Social Security, withholding, and unemployment taxes. MRC files a lawsuit in tax court against the Commissioner of the IRS, in which MRC seeks relief from this liability. Will MRC prevail? What factors will the tax court take into account? 3. Should MRC be held legally responsible for the damages to the injured victims and the families of those that were killed in the collision? Why or why not? What factors would you analyze to make your determination? 4. One of the attorneys for a badly injured passenger holds a press conference. She tells the reporters, "I don't care whether the guy was an employee, independent contractor, or an untrained dog trainer. MRC put the guy in charge of that train. He had apparent authority from MRC to be there, and any passengers would reasonably believe that he had MRC's authority to act. So we're going after MRC." What do you think of her argument that "apparent authority" existed here (note-this is a question concerning apparent authority, not disclosed or partially disclosed principals)