Doe v. Liberatore - Case Study Example

The paper "Doe v. Liberatore" is a worthy example of a case study on business. Considering the case of Doe versus Liberatore, it can be said that the principle of respondeat superior does create unfair expectations for business in the States.  As per this law, the employer is held responsible for the employees’ actions during the course of employment.  The course of employment refers to space and time of employment.  The present context stands a classic example of the extent of liability that the employer has or should have for employees’ actions.  Doe’s complaint against Diocese of Scranton, the Sacred Heart Church and Bishop Timlin stands valid and should receive complete support from the Court.  However, the existing statutes concerning negligent and intentional torts do not provide complete support to Doe against employers; these statutes can only provide complete support to Doe against Liberatore.
According to the negligent and intentional torts statute, the employer is liable if the employee’s actions caused significant harm to any third person; however, the employer is not liable if the employee’s actions were intentional and we're committed to serving the employer’s interests.  Liberatore’s actions against Doe and others were in no way related to the Church’s interests; in fact, they were completely against the ethics and morale of his role in the Church. The court and the employer have the right to punish Liberatore for the wrongdoings.
On the other hand, Doe’s complaint against Diocese of Scranton, the Sacred Heart Church and Bishop Timlin stand a poorer chance of winning considering the extent of liability that the trio has towards the employee that violated acts of morality and harmed the plaintiff outside the time and space of employment.  Doe’s claim that the employer has liability to hire the right candidate for the job and that the employee has to be supervised and punished for wrongdoings certainly holds true if the employers have strong processes for conducting these activities. However, the Bishop and/or the Church would not be able to verify the Priest’s past and connection with similar instances of violation, it would be extremely difficult for them to abandon the employees.  This limitation renders Doe’s complaint against the Diocese, the Church and the Bishop void. As the employee is someway or other causing harm to people associated with the employer or agency, such violations cause significant damage, reputational or otherwise, to the employer as well.   
Hence, it can be opined that the limits to liability are not enough to protect people from negligence and/or intentional violation of laws by employees and employers.   The limits to employer liability have to be extended to include the responsibility of the employer to hire, supervise and retain the right candidate; and also to punish employees that violate these laws.  It certainly becomes the duty of the employer to check the person’s background, link with other violations, etc.  The first instance of violation has to be taken seriously by the employer and investigated in order to prevent further harm to any third person when the actions are not in the interest of the company, the employer or any of its associates.