Task 5 Vicarious Liability

Task 5 Vicarious Liability
Task 5a Vicarious liability Vicarious liability is where one person is held liable for the torts of another, even though that person did not commit the
act itself. It is therefore a form of strict liability (in that the defendant is not at fault). The most common form of vicarious liability is when employers
are held liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment. The issue of vicarious liability can be seen to be
unjust in that someone who is not at fault can be held liable. In order to establish liability on the part of the employer, several requirements must be
satisfied. Firstly, the wrongdoer must be an employee (as opposed to an independent contractor), the employee must have committed a tort
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Criminal Law
Doctrine of vicarious liability
The doctrine of vicarious liability generally operates within the law of torts. It has become well–established in English law and historically has been
called "Master and Servant liability," which clearly indicates the circumstances in which the doctrine becomes applicable in tort law.
The general rule in tort law is that a person who authorises a tort will personally be liable for damage or harm as a result. However, vicarious liability
defines the circumstances in which a person is liable for the torts of another without express authorisation or ratification. The most common example of
vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for the torts of his employees committed in the course of...show more content...
In the Court of Appeal case of Mattis v. Pollock (t/a Flamingos Nightclub) a nightclub owner was held vicariously liable for the violent acts of an
employed doorman. The Court of Appeal applied the rationale of Lister and held that a "broad" approach was required in assessing whether an
individuals acts were sufficiently connected with the duties of his employment so as to justify imposing vicarious liability.
Vicarious Liability under a statutory duty
An employer can also be held vicariously liable for an employee's breach of a statutory duty. This duty differs to that of acommon law duty in that the
duty does not rise by operation of common law principles, but by statute. As such, the statute imposes a duty on the employee personally and makes no
reference to the employer. An employer can be held liable for the breach of a statutory duty even where the statutory duty is owed by the employee
personally and individually. This circumstance would potentially arise in the context of harassment within the workplace, where one employee has
been harassed or bullied by another– see the case of Majrowski v. Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust. However, emphasis will be placed on the
intention of the legislature in creating the statute in deciding whether vicarious liability should be imposed.
Conclusion
Where vicarious liability is imposed on an employer, both the

There are three theories of liability direct, vicarious, and enterprise. Direct liability has four types that are direct one of which is the principle in
the 1st degree aka "the Perpetrator" which is someone who committed the crime willing on his own accord. The second is the principle in the 2nd
degree aka "the Accomplice" which is someone who assisted the assailant with the delegation of the crime while also wanting to commit the crime
at the same time he/she is also present during the scene of the crime. An accessory before the Fact is not present in the area of where the crime was
committed, but helped by either counseling, encouraging, or urging the delegation of a crime. The Pinkerton Rule states that all accessories are
liable for predictable actions that lead to being criminalized hence the violation of the criminal agreement. Even if the accomplice is not present at
the scene of a committed felony crime they are still guilty. The two aspects are the specific resolve towards committing the crime the aiding of crime
or encouragement towards the committing of a crime. A death penalty is only ever enforced on those who have committed the murder. The next type
is the accessory after the fact which is someone who knows he/she has committed a crime and still aid with disturbing the case like hiding the
assailant away from the police for example. They will also be charged with the felony since they know they committed the crime. Relations like with
family is a type of

1.0INTRODUCTION
Liability is said to be 'vicarious' when one person is thought liable for wrongs committed by another. Vicarious liability is not a tort or a wrong in itself
but a way in which liability may be imposed: a person may be directly liable for their own torts or vicariously liable for torts committed by third party.
For example of vicarious liability in tort rise from the relationship of master and servant, this effectively means employer and employee. The regulation
is that an employer is vicarious liability for the wrongful act committed by an employee in the progress of their employment.
The common law rule is that an employer is responsible for the torts of their employees that are dedicated through the progress of employment....show
more content...
An employee contributes in professional or consultation services to any outside fear that does business with the substance, except with the Substance's
previous information and agreement.
3.An employee receives benefit, gifts, favours, entertaining or other similar benefits of more than a nominal value from any outside fear which does or
seeks to do business with the Substance.
4.0METHODOLOGY
The research design will be a secondary data from different databases about the vicarious liability and conflict interest in vicarious liability. All
secondary data remained downloaded from websites. Perhaps, websites E– Journal in electronic resources. Besides, the library search for books and
online databases will also be optimized. For instance, books, government journals of economic indicators, census data, statistical summaries, the media,
an annual report of companies, case studies, financial databases.
5.0

Liability : Liability And Liability
Liability has to do with the responsibility of one party, group or organization to another. Usually it deals with financial compensation. Liability
may not always come from some intentional action or negligence. Sometimes liability can even be a way to keep peace between different parties
rather than an injured party taking more serious action. The affixing of liability may have been enacted as a peace keeping intuitive. In law a
person can be liable she or he is financially or legally responsible for something. Liability can be covered by insurance and can be imposed jointly.
There is some different forms of liability such as vicarious liability which is the responsibility of an employer to compensate for the behavior and
actions of a worker or an employee. You have strict liability which is for people who perform certain task such as working in ultra–hazardous types of
work like high explosives. In strict liability those engaging in these actions are responsible for injury without the need for inquiry. Under strict
liability there is no need to provide proof, negligence or intention. Limited liability is when business owners are legally and financially responsible for
nothing more than the amount they have contributed to a particular venture. If a bank or business goes bankrupt an owner who has limited liability
they will not lose unrelated assets like a home. Manufactures liability is a legal concept in many nations that shows the fact that producers of a
products have a

1.As a starting note, any mention of concurrent liability should be assumed to mean concurrently liability in tort and contract. Traditionally the
distinction between contract and tort was that contract concerns the improvement of the claimant 's position, whereas tort is concerned with dealing
with their position worsening. There has been dispute around concurrent liability and its ambiguity has led to varying decision in cases and statute
making as Taylor puts it "the basis of concurrent liability uncertain". This essay will argue Tort has and is extending itself beyond its traditional role
due to judges presumption of morality leading to the unclear concurrent liability we see today. Whilst this concurrent liability shows some...show more
content...
3.In analysis, however limitations won't always be more 'just' than contract, for example in cases of a construction or design defect, the limitation
period in tort starts, at the latest, at the date of practical completion of contract meaning it will often in such scenarios have the same period of
limitation. Furthermore, burden is on the plaintiff to show when time began in personal injuries action in order to decide whether they're within the
limitations period, this also meaning that it could result in the claim in tort also being expired as well as contract. Clearly the point of a concurrence
in tort isn't to then provide what seems at first glance to be a fairer alternative, but rather by providing alternatives in limitations, it is fairer and more
adaptable. Thus, it would make sense in cases of overlap of tort of contract to allow this choice as leads to a more effective system that is likelier to
consequently satisfy more people, than to attempt to restrict concurrent liability and prevent it. 4.Concurrently liability also allows claimants to achieve
the damage that is most appropriate to them. Depending on what you claim in, you have different option for

The Main Justification For Vicarious Liability
5. What is the main justification for the main principle for a vicarious liability? The definition of vicarious liability states that one party is liable
for the actions of another. If there is a relationship between the tortfeasor and the defendant it will give the plaintiff a larger opportunity to be able
to hold up a case because he/she will have another defendant that they may possibly use to make evidence stronger. The main justification for
vicarious liability is that employers have more options to be able to pay compensation for when employees do not. The justification is that the
employer will have to pay and bare the risks of loss. Employers are in charge of there contractors or staff who work for them because they have
signed a contract; so if an employee is in troubled situation with work the employer has to step in and take responsibility and cover the employee's
wrong actions. 8. How do the courts determine the appropriate standard of care to be expected of a defendant? "The courts determine that everyone
owes a duty to take reasonable care in respect of anyone whom they could reasonably foresee might be harmed by their actions." Not all cases are
the same so they can't determine the appropriate standard of care for each defendant to be the same. For example, if an Oshawa owner owned a pit
bull who has a history of biting, and was on a leash in an un–fenced back yard and had bit someone who was walking on the side walk. The duty of
care for this defendant

The Concept Of Strict Liability
Case Study Assignment Cammy Duong – 500641750 CRM200 – 041 Dr. Daniel Alati Ryerson University Due Date: November, 15th 2016 This paper
will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this
paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the
criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their
relationship with the Charter of Rights. It was through the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978) that the court was able to establish and recognize three
categories of offences; True criminal offence, which involves having the state of mind of "intent, knowledge, or recklessness"; to commit the actual
crime, and "must be proved by the prosecution either as an inference from the nature of the act committed, or by additional evidence", meaning that a
complete mens rea must be included within the offence, and take full punishment for their actions. The second category that was established in the
Sault Ste Marie (1978) case, was the concept of Strict Liability Offences; in which, as described as offences that don't necessarily require the
prosecution to prove an existing mens rea, "the doing of the prohibited act prima facie imports the offence, leaving it open to the accused to avoid

Vicarious Liability
submitted to prof. manjula batra| LAW OF TORTS PROJECT| VICARIOUS LIABILITY| | | SUBMITTED BY:VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGHFIRST
SEMEMSTER, 2012BA., LL.B. (HONS.)|
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would take this opportunity to thank the people who helped me in making this project which has been a learning experience. In that endeavour,
first and foremost I would express my gratitude toward my professor of Law of Torts Ms Manjula Batra. Her immense knowledge and teaching
skills along with her helping disposition are where all of this stemmed from. Next, I would thank my seniors in the faculty who gave us guidelines as
to how to go about the research. These are the people who were always there with me in the making of this project. Heartfelt...show more content...
In these cases liability is joint as well as several. The other common example of vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for the torts of his
employees committed in the course of employment. It is not necessary in such circumstances for the employer to have breached any duty that was
owed to the injured party, and therefore it operates as strict or no–fault liability. It is possible that the injured party could be either an employee or a
stranger, and the employer can be held vicariously liable in both situations. The most important element to establishing a case for vicarious liability is
that the wrongdoer be acting as a servant or employee, and that the wrong done be connected to the employees course of employment. Vicarious
liability can only be imposed if it is proved that the employee was acting Віin the course of employment. This criterion is essential, and requires a clear
connection between the employment duties and the employee's acts complained of. A reason for vicarious responsibility of employers is that
employers usually are, while their servants usually are not, financially capable of the burden of civil liability. The theory partly owes its existence to
the anxiety of the injured person to find a solvent defendant. Again it is said that the employer must be made liable because it is he 'who has set the
whole thing in motion.'
TYPES OF LIABITIES
Liability by

Rober Vicarious Liability Paper
Vicarious liability refers to a scenario in which an individual or a given organization is held potentially liable for damages occurred that
significantly led to harm (Bell, 2013). In a workplace setting, the organizations may be held responsible for any damage caused by its employees if
the actions took placed during the employment. Vicarious liability refers to the process in which another person is held responsible for another
individual's deleterious deeds. The business format franchisors who work towards achieving a common goal are always vulnerable to vicarious
liability. The employer or boss of a person who by chance become negligent of his or her work and cause harm to individuals will be held
responsible for the actions done by the employee. Therefore, as a way of ensuring the company or the employer is protected against the issues of
being responsible for the wrong deeds in the organization or work, they should work close with the employees and ensure that they monitor all their
actions to prevent the chances of wrong doings that can lead to harm. The concept of vicarious liability is evident in the case of...show more content...
The organization was established to ensure that laws concerning compliance of pharmacy and drug are adhered to and respected. It, therefore, had the
mandate of evaluating the services provided to the customers. Evidently, the patient who received cancer regimen drugs from Courtney did not exhibit
the side effects that were observed for the patients who collected drugs elsewhere such as loss of hair (The Buffalo News, 2001). If the Kansas State
Board of Pharmacy actively involved in the evaluation of the drugs dispensed from different organizations, it is evident that they could have identified
earlier enough the unlawful acts of Courtney and take actions accordingly. Since they failed in doing so, they should be liable of the wrongful that deeds

The English Law on Vicarious Liability
An employer is responsible for damage caused by the torts of his employees acting in the course of employment. This is known as 'vicarious
liability'[1]. Essentially, vicarious liability is where the employer is generally substituted in terms of liability for the employee, the employee also has
liability but the resources of the employer such as insurance makes them more financially attractive to the claimant. The mechanism of vicarious liability
is arguably the best compromise between the needs of tort victims and the freedom of businesses as the employer usually has insurance to cover the
tort of the employee, making it more financially viable to the...show more content...
The principle of vicarious liability is very controversial as it is quite broad, and the fact that personal fault on behalf of the employer is not required
means that it is sometimes more difficult to attribute blame on big companies or corporations than individuals.
However, there are many aspects of vicarious liability that make it suitable for its use. In nearly every case the employer is in the best position
financially to compensate a claimant as they always have the 'deepest pocket'. The whole purpose of the law of tort is to compensate the victims, the
resources in question that enable the employer to have the 'deepest pocket is provided through insurance. Many employees are not worth suing,
therefore without the insurance industry the present tort system could not operate[4].
Vicarious liability forces the employer to continually strive for accident prevention. If every employee was insured individually it is unlikely that the
employer would take such a keen interest as there is no direct liability. Employers generally therefore assess the suitability of the staff, give them
adequate training and dismiss any that are unreasonably risky to reduce the risk of any torts occurring.
Another argument that justifies the existence of

Vicarious Liability Case
This question relates to vicarious liability in essence of the motorcar owner and motorcar driver affiliation. This means that the owner allows
someone else to drive his car (That does not work for him) negligently causes an accident and the owner of the car will be held liable for the loss.
There must be three requirements met in order to determine whether the owner can be held liable. Firstly the owner must request the driver to drive
the vehicle or supervise his driving. Secondly the vehicle must be driven in the interest of the owner. Finally the owner must retain the right of control
over the manner in which the vehicle is driven. In this case all three requirements was met and Henry can be held liable.

Vicarious Liability Paper
Vicarious liability is used to refer to the concept that any employer is liable for the wrongs done by his or her employees in the employment period
(Goodwin, 2016). An organization is known to be liable vicariously if the offense takes place during working period and if it happened when the
employee was performing the duties. The areas that require continuous updating and planning due to joint liability concerns may include; sexual
harassment, employees should abide by employers conduct and code trained on sexual harassment (Augenstein, 2014). Another area that requires
training and updating is the face to face compliance which helps to enforce ethical behaviors within an organization. Continuous updating and planning
are needed in the practice

Vicarious Liability
Seminar 7
Vicarious Liability
The problem question deals mainly with the issue of Vicarious Liability and Negligence. In order to advise Jerry one would have to explore the rules
of vicarious liability, relevant statute law and case law which may apply.
Vicarious liability has been defined as the person who commits a wrong must be an employee and not an independent contractor, the employee must
have committed a tort and the tort must have been in the course of employment.
The doctrine of 'vicarious liability' is a public policy that holds employers liable when a tort is committed by an employee in the course of their
employment. This means that a victim of a tort can claim compensation from the employee's company if it is proven to...show more content...
If however, the person is paid a lump sum and has to make their own reduction, they are more likely to be seen as an independent contractor. In this
case it was held that the driver was an independent contractor.
However in the case of Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security
[1969] 2QB173 Cooke J's judgment was that "The fundamental test to be applied is this: "Is the person who has engaged himself to perform these
services performing them as a person in business on his own account?" This was been determined by using a mix of factors: for example, does the
employee provide his own equipment and does he hires his own helpers? It also looks at what degree of financial risk he takes and to what degree
of responsibility he has. It also takes into account how the employee is paid and whether the employee can work for another. In this case it was held
that Mrs Irving was employed under a series of contracts of service and therefore was an employee of the company.
Although, Jerry regards Peter as self–employed within his organisation, it would be fair to state that given the control test above, Jerry does have
control over Peter by stating that if ever Peter is not available when he wants him he will never employ him again. Peter is free to work for others but
does not do so. Therefore the case of Yewens v. Noakes (1880) 6 QBD demonstrates the control that

Vicarious Liability
Case Study Vicarious Liability Introduction Under the English Common Law, Vicarious liability is a principle of the tort laws. The law imposes
liability of employees and agents to their employers. Under this law, the liability of any tort committed by an employee that falls under the scope of
his duties to the employer is transferred to the employer. This includes both the intentional and unintentional torts. The inclusion of the intentional torts
came in to effect after the ruling in the case of Lister V Hensley Hall Limited. Before this case, intentional torts were not considered for vicarious
liability. The reason for vicarious liability is to allow the injured parties to have better means of recovering their damages as employers...show more
content...
Under the American Law Institute's Restatement of the Law, I can choose to sue either or both of the employees Tex and Rex. The law provides
for the agent to be held liable by a third party who has suffered harm as a resort of a tort committed by the agent. The law holds the agent jointly
(with the employer) responsible (Giliker, 2010). The employer however remains the superior respondent. This law includes tortuous actions taken
by an agent or an employee in the line of duty. Under this law, I can sue both Rex and Tex for the injuries resulting from their tortuous acts. The
testimony by Tex would be effective in helping me sue Rex for damages. Conclusion Under the vicarious liability law, the employer can be jointly
or separately, sued with the employee for injuries resulting from a tortuous act. In the case of the resort and their agents Tex and Rex, the tortuous
that led to my injuries were because of the agent's actions. The preference of the resort as my first respondents was guided by the fact that they were
the one that advertised the event and the two employees were acting as agents of the resort to make the event successful. The resorts also have the
ability to pay my damages at ease than the employees. The resort may also choose to recover their costs by suing the two employees. Tex's

The Common Law Concept Of Vicarious Liability
Introduction
The common law concept of vicarious liability is an element where an organisation/company is responsible for the negligent acts that an employee
does which the employer represents contrasting to corrective justice where the role of the employer is dependable on and not the actual fault. This area
of law has experienced significant developments. The courts have placed great value on the risks created by an initiative in determining the extent of
liability. I will further discuss whether the law on vicarious liability is incoherent and unpredictable or not since there have been many downfalls and
inconsistency under tort law.
Main
There are two main elements to establish in vicarious liability. Firstly there must be an 'employment relationship ' and secondly, that there has been
previously an act of negligence during the 'course of employment' (i.e. during the time when the tortfeasor was at work) . This is also referred to as
the Salmond test which looks to the person 's act focusing on what the employee was hired and told to do by the employer. Acts beyond this may
cause the employer to be vicariously liable by reason of similarity .
Non–delegable duties
One of the theories that are developed to underpin vicarious liability is employers' liabilities such as non–delegable duties. Robert Stevens states that a
non–delegable duty is where you take responsibility not only to look after yourself but someone else too and if failed then you have discharged your

This dialogue will express the differences between traditional parental responsibility statues and vicarious liability. Parental responsibility statues are
based on the parent's actions and mistakes while vicarious liability statues are based off of the parent child relationship with each other.[1] Vicarious
liability statues generate from the public anxiety, frustration, and rage over juvenile crime and parent's failure to have paternal control over their
children in our society.[1] Furthermore, there are only a few appellate courts cases regarding vicarious liability statues that held parents accountable for
their children criminal behavior due to parent child relationship {Difonzo 2001}.[1] For example, in 1979 the State v. Akers, the

Vicarious Liabilities And Medical Malpractice
.S. health laws based on criminal misconduct in health care to the creation of contract laws, holds health care facilities liable to vicarious liabilities
and Tort Laws that amount up to Medical Malpractice. Vicarious liability is a scenario where one or more persons / group or an organization is held
responsible for the actions of another person / group or an organization. From an organizational standpoint, the firm or the company could be held
liable for the actions of its employees provided the action in question took place during the tenure of the employee's career in the organization. Tort
law levies legal liabilities upon an individual, group an organization or a firm / company in the event of their unfair practices or wrong doing that

Civil Liability Essay
Private Police and Civil Liability
Dan Seemann
SEC/350
August 4, 2014
Darrin Waters
Civil Liability and Private Police
Private police and security continue to grow at a rapid pace because of reduced Constitutional restrictions, but employers must also understand the
increased civil liabilities associated with employing private security. This paper will help to evaluate civil liability and how these liabilities are applied
to private police forces. Another key element will be to identify and recommend certain measures that can be implemented to help mitigate
organizational and institutional liability. Mitigating these liabilities will enable a larger return on investment for the business using these private
security forces....show more content...
The next type of tort law is based on intentional negligence. This type of tort requires that the burden of proof show that the officer willfully engaged
in an activity that would knowingly bring harm or injury to a person. Intent can be very difficult to prove and usually account for a minimal number of
successful civil suit, one such case, "Morgan v. The City of Alvin, No.01–02–01212, 175 S.W.3d 408 (Tex. App. 1st Dist. 2004). See also Schauer v.
Morgan, 01–04–00142, 175 S.W.3d 397 (Tex. App. 1st Dist. 2005), ruling that the officer, as a city employee, had immunity from liability in the
arrestee's claims against him individually, since the immunity granted to government employees under the Texas Tort Claims Act is not limited to
actions carried out within the scope of their employment or in good faith." (Farber, 2007) Strict liability is the last type of tort law where the
damages must be severe for this law to be applied. This law can be applied to both the officer and the organization when assigning damages, and is
most often assigned to the organization as an individual can rarely pay the damages. Additional considerations that can be associated with state tort
liabilities can include wrongful death, assault and battery, and false arrest and false imprisonment. Some crimes only include some of the principles of
liability, while others may contain all principles, and are known as true crimes.
An example of liability associated with a negligent

Task 5 Vicarious Liability

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Task 5 Vicarious Liability

Similar to Task 5 Vicarious Liability (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Task 5 Vicarious Liability