Employer's Duty of Care and Issues of Compensation - Assignment Example

If the instructions are not stated clearly, the employee may act in good faith to fulfill a particular duty of obedience. This should be done in a manner that is reasonable especially considering the existing circumstances at that particular moment. Jake has been employed on a contract basis as certified auto mechanic at the Rally motors. This therefore means that Jake may perform any job assigned to him by his employer provided the job is reasonable. Even as Jake performs the job assigned to him, he is aware of what is expected of him by the federal or state regulations.

Basing on the movie, one can comfortably say that Jake’s actions are within his scope of employment. The current job of oil change is, most likely, not what Jake expected as he entered into an employment agreement with Herman. Instead it is a promotional offer invented by Herman to attract more customers as he says that as the customers’ cars are being serviced, the customers get a chance to check out the new car models. So Jake may argue that as far as what is expected of him in terms of standards is concerned, his actions are within his scope of employment (Goss, 2004).

It may be argued that every employee has an obligation to perform his duties as directed by his employer. Such arguments may be as a result shortsightedness in terms of the potential impacts it may have on the business in the future. In this case, for example, customers expect a fully serviced vehicle from the service department especially if the service personnel like Jake are certified. So, it is Jake’s responsibility to do thorough service work on the customers’ vehicles and this includes checking and where possible servicing the tires, brakes and transmission as would be expected of a certified auto mechanic (Murolo & Chitty, 2001).

This ensures that the vehicle is safe for driving by the customer. If a vehicle from the service centre gets involved in an accident and the resultant victim, be it the customer or another third party, sues the service company, the company might be forced to compensate for the loss or damage incurred. This might destroy the company’s reputation and also bring the competencies of the auto mechanics involved, like Jake, into question. Another perspective would be for Jake to identify if there is something wrong with any part of the vehicle that might pose a safety risk and make it his duty to inform the customer and recommend for him/her the necessary or appropriate repairs to be made.

If the extra work Jake is doing on the customers’ vehicles is not paid for and therefore does not generate any further income for his employer, then it would appear that he is violating his duty obedience. This can be clearly seen when Herman tells him that his work is to change the oil but not to fix other parts of the vehicle, an action that finally results into overcrowding of the customers’ vehicles. Considering these two perspectives, the question whether or not Jake acted within the scope of his employment becomes complicated and hence one that can only be satisfactorily handled by a jury.

Question 2: Explain whether or not Herman