Cartman\'s Cases Should Cartman Win

Cartman's Cases

Should Cartman win his wrongful termination suit with Authorit-I?

There is absolutely no way that Cartman should win his wrongful termination suit against Authorit-I. Though it is possible that the company did not follow its own procedures by failing to conduct an exit interview with Cartman following (or immediately prior to, depending on one's perspective) his termination, this does not necessarily constitute grounds for a wrongful termination claim. Not only do most states have at-will employment laws that allow for employers and employees to end working relationships for any cause not specific prohibited (race, gender, religion, etc.), but there is definitely cause for termination in this scenario. Cartman presents a clear and immense liability to the company, and Authorit-I had every right to terminate Cartman immediately following this incident.

Question 2: Will Authorit-I be liable to the owners of Kenny's bar? What about Kenny's mom? Does the same law apply to both cases?

At the time of the fireball incident, Cartman was carrying out his duties as an employee of Authorit-I. As such, Authorit-I is responsible for any damages that result out of Cartman's actions through his negligence. This means that Authorit-I is undoubtedly responsible for the damage done to Kenny's bar, and is also liable for the wrongful death suit brought by Kenny's mother. The concept in the law of vicarious liability applies in both cases, as it was through the same negligent act of an agent of Authorit-I that both the bar damage and the wrongful death of Kenny occurred. Vicarious liability is the primary legal factor in these lawsuits as they pertain to Authorit-I.

Question 3: Will Kyle win his lawsuit against Authorit-I for his injuries?

It is not clear that vicarious liability applies in the case of Kyle's injuries. Cartman was certainly not an employee of Authorit-I at the time, and was no doubt aware of this fact, yet Kyle had not been made aware of this and was presented with a man claiming to still be an agent of the company, treating him to a dinner specifically at the request of that company. Obviously, a person simply claiming to represent a company cannot create legal liabilities for the company if there is no real association with them, so the question becomes whether or not Cartman's previous association with Authorit-I has any bearing in this case. Given the extreme unlikelihood that Cartman would have remained employed after the fireball incident, it should be concluded that Cartman's actions following his termination did not create additional liabilities for Authorit-I, and Kyle's suit against the company will be unsuccessful.