Bill Beam the coach of Midwest University mens basketball te

Solution

Beam should be held under intentional liability- intentional harm

The athletic director and the university may be held accountable under various liabilities as follows:

Vicarious liability/Respondet superiors- employers are responsible for the action of their employees in general, action taken within the scope of employment. When the employee does something harmful, especially when the employer is aware of such harm being done, then the employer is also held accountable. The doctrine is also based on the premise that employer has the ability to control employees

The coach has been punishing in an attempt to discipline the players. Such punishment seems to be done as an action

He has slammed the guys several times as a part of the punishments and this time, an athlete has suffered a severe injury. The action seems reasonable,’ not an affair of his own’.

Though it can be considered an intentional tort, Also as stated in Nathans vs. Offerman(2013) case, two exceptions can be allowed in which employee’s intentional tort could fall under the scope of employment and Beam’s action satisfies both.

Negligent hiring

Since Beam seems to have a track record of verbally abusing and ill-treating players. The university and the manager who hired can be sued for negligent hiring- i.e. hiring a person who does not the desired personal characteristics.

Negligent supervision

The university and the athletic director could have easily supervised well, corrected and guided the coach, Beam. But they failed to do so and remained oblivious. Hence the both can be sued for the action of beam

Negligent retention

The athletic director knows well about the demeanors of Beam. He remained oblivious to the Coach’s actions and does nothing to discipline Beam or discharge Beam of his duties

Hence the director and the university can be sued for negligent retention of an unruly employee.