In order to establish that DDL was

In order to establish that DDL was vicariously liable for Adrian’s negligence, James must establish that Adrian is an employee and that he was acting in the course of his employment. Adrian is an employee, so there is no problem there, but there are difficulties with establishing that he was acting in the course of his employment. The effect of the rule that no passengers who were not DDL employees were to be carried.

เพื่อที่ทำให้เห็นว่า DDL เป็น vicariously รับผิดชอบต่อความประมาทของเอเดรียน, เจมส์ต้องกล่าวว่าเอเดรียนเป็นพนักงานและบอกว่าเขากำลังทำหน้าที่ในหลักสูตรของการจ้างงานของเขา เอเดรียนเป็นพนักงานจึงไม่มีปัญหา แต่ปัญหาคือการกล่าวว่าเขากำลังทำหน้าที่ในหลักสูตรของการจ้างงานของเขา ผลกระทบของกฎที่ไม่มีผู้โดยสารที่ไม่ได้เป็นพนักงาน DDL ที่จะดำเนินการ

Results (English) 1:

In order to establish that DDL was vicariously liable for Adrian's negligence, James must establish that Adrian is an employee and that he was acting in the course of his employment. Adrian is an employee, so there is no problem there, but there are difficulties with establishing that he was acting in the course of his employment. The effect of the rule that no passengers who were not DDL employees were to be carried.In order to do that the DDL is vicariously liable for the negligence of Adrian, James must say yonpen Adriatik employees and says that he is acting in the course of his employment. Yonpen Adriatik employees, there is no problem, but the problem is, said he was acting in the course of his employment. The impact of the rule that there are no passengers who do not have a DDL operation.

Results (English) 2:

In order to establish that DDL was vicariously liable for Adrian's negligence, James must establish that Adrian is an employee and that he was acting in the course of his employment. Adrian is an employee, so there is no problem there, but there are difficulties with. establishing that he was acting in the course of his employment. The effect of the rule that no passengers who were not DDL employees were to be carried. In order to make that DDL is vicariously liable for the negligence of Adrian, James. To say that Adrian is an employee and that he was acting in the course of his employment. Adrian was the staff, so no problems. But the problem is that he was acting in the course of his employment. The impact of the rules where no passengers are not employed to perform DDL.

Results (English) 3:

In order to establish that DDL was vicariously liable for Adrian ', s negligence James must establish that Adrian is an employee. And that he was acting in the course of his employment. Adrian is an employee so there, is no, problem there but there are. Difficulties with establishing that he was acting in the course of his employment.The effect of the rule that no passengers who were not DDL employees were to be carried.

so that DDL. Vicariously liable for negligence of Adrienne,James to said Adrian employee and said that he was acting in the course of the จ้างงานของเขา. Adrian employee is no problem. But the problem is said that he was acting in the course of his employment.DDL to proceed.