Question

Mary owns a winery in southern Ohio she started 5 years ago. She established a Limited Liability Company called “Great Grapes” to operate the winery under. Mary is hired as the President of Great Grapes and is responsible for all operations and manages all employees. Ted, an employee of Great Grapes recently was operating a backhoe (a digging machine) in the vineyard when he struck a fiber optic data line. His negligence shut down a number phone lines creating a significant liability in terms of damages. If Great Grapes does not have sufficient net worth or liability insurance to pay the claims, Plaintiffs will try to go after Mary's personal assets. I would claim that because Mary personally was supervising Ted, she was negligent in that supervision and personally responsible for the damage. What is Mary's best defense against this claim. Hint: it relates to the scope of Ted's employment.

Answer 1

The best defence that Mary has in this regard is that Ted, although supervised by Mary, is not employed by Ted rather is under employment of Great Grapes. Also Great Grapes is a limited liability company so the owner, in this case Mary, is not liable for the company’s liability greater than the amount invested by her in the company. In the capacity of as an employee and President, Mary’s liability cannot be any different from any other employee. So it is not correct for the plaintiffs to go after Mary’s personal assets.