The issue that the paper addresses is whether theGreiff Brothers Company is responsiblefortheactions of its contractor.The paper also seeks to address the theory that the plaintiff might use to provethe responsibility of the company in regard to the issue. The paper argues that, by applying the theory of vicarious liability, the plaintiff will easily prove the responsibility of the company.

In order to determine whether the plaintiff:
a) ThatGreiff Brothers are theemployersof Lowell Wilson.
b) Lowell Wilson hired Youngtown Security Patrol, Inc to providesecurityfortheplant.
c) It is also a factthat Mr. Lowell acted with powersbestowed upon him by theplant’s management.

Thecounsel can, therefore, draw a line that connectsthedeath of Mr. Derell Pusey to theactions of employees of theGreiff Brothers company. Thissituationpresents a chanceforthe firm to usevicariousliability as groundsforsuingthecompany (Cane, 1997. Theargument can rest on thefactthat Greiff Brothers have a liabilityforanyinjuriescaused by YSP Inc. whenthecompany is workingfortheparentcompany (Bar & Drobnig, 2004). Thecounsel would support the argumentwiththefactthat:
a) Thecompanyacted through its superintendent to hire a firm on which they should haveconductedduediligence.
b) Counsel can arguethatGreiff Brothers, through its superintendent, wasresponsiblefortheactions of Youngtown Security Patrol and its agents.

By using these facts, theclaimant has a veryhighprobability of successifshechose to go with thistheory. She can provethatGreiff Brothers knewwhomitwashiringbecauseitused a high ranking member of thestaff to dothehiring. It is alsorelativelyeasy to arguethat a company of Greiff Brothers’ stature would not hire a firm without looking at the firm’s operationsandestablishingthattheoperationsmetthe setstandards. Sothecounsel can provethat:
a) Thehighest levels of thecompanyknew about thehiring of YSP Inc.
b) Thecompanyconducted a duediligence of thecompanyandestablishedthat YSP Inc. wascompetentenough to handletheassignment.

Considering the above reasons, the theory would work in favour of the plaintiff.

References

Bar, C., & Drobnig, U. (2004). Theinteraction of contractlawand tort andproperty Law in Europe: Acomparativestudy.Mu?nchen: Sellier European Law Publ.

Pusey v. Bator, (2002) 94 Ohio St. 3d 275, 762 N.E.2d 9

Cane, P. (1997). Theanatomy of tort law. Oxford: Hart Publ.