Application Of An Employer's Liability

At first, the NSW Supreme Court found that the Public Relation Oriented Security was not vicariously liable as the assault was motivated by guard’s blood lust and want beyond the reasonable acts. In Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Ltd[1], the court of appeal was faced with complex difficulty concerning the employee’s authority either the authority of the employee is within the scope of employment or not which may resulted in vicarious liability.

This essay will briefly explain negligence and its elements and will further critically analyse the UK compensation culture and discuss whether it exist, or whether it is a perception created by the media. This essay will further discuss whether the UK laws encourage people to blame and claim and what the UK law has done to prevent an increase in the compensation culture.

The case study selected for week three centers on a liability and assumption of risk case study. In this case study, Brent Thomas and George Banks are facing liability charges after Ricky Watts sustained a serious injury during hockey practice (Essex, 2016). In this situation, Thomas is the school principal, and Banks is the hockey coach as well as the gym teacher (Essex, 2016). Ricky obtained injuries after improperly blocking the puck (Essex, 2016). This case study was selected because it highlights a situation that will likely be faced by all future school leaders. Sports are popular among students, and there is inherent risk in each sporting event. A school is open to liability if they do not ensure that proper protocols are met.

1. The court meant by its statement that negligent hiring and negligent retention “rely on liability on the part of an individual or a business that has been on the basis of negligence or other factors resulting in harm or damage to another individual or their property” (Luthra, 2011) and not on “an obligation that arises from the relationship of one party with another” (Luthra, 2011). The court meant that “negligent hiring and negligent retention do not rely on the scope of employment but address risks created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).

There are many defendants in this case. First and foremost Dale, the loss prevention officer for Wal-Mart, is a defendant because he intentionally restrained Bob against his will and the restraint was unlawful. Dale also failed to follow company rules; Dale was supposed to watch a video that explained how to catch and deal with thieves but decided not to watch the video. The second defendant would be Dale’s supervisor. The supervisor recorded a pass on an exam that dale did not take. The exam Dale failed to write was based on the video that Dale did not watch. The third defendant would be Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart assumes liability because they could be at fault for not properly training staff. Bob would want to take action on

This analysis has taken place in regards to the civil case of Moor v Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd [2014]. This case involves Moor the plaintiff accusing Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd the defendant of breaching their duty of care and simply failing to exercise the standard of care required by law. This case involves a civil wrongdoing. A civil wrong doing is generally a breach of a person 's rights. This generally associates with tort. This case involves a specific component of tort, negligence which exercises the legal right for a plaintiff to seek compensation for the damages caused by another party who were seen as legally liable. The case analysed within this report sees a Mr Christopher Moor sue Liverpool Catholic Club

Spring v Guardian Assurance plc9 is key for this discussion. The claimant “won the case on grounds of the defendant’s negligence”.10 The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care in terms of providing a reference. However, there was a partial split in decision between the judges on the defendant’s rejection of liability towards the reference. The Hedley Byrne fundamentals of proximity argued the case focused on

All witnesses who are competent are also compellable1, unless one considers the compellability of spouses. Whilst married partners are compellable to testify on behalf of their spouse2, no such universal compellability arises for the prosecution. The testimonial privilege was once an undefeatable rule of the common law3 unless it involved violence against the other spouse4. Arguably, the

The intention of Ross’ behavior are unknown, but the evidence suggest, Ross intended to create an a hardship for previous employees, potentially seeking other employment regardless of whether or not Ross was listed as a reference. Perhaps unknowingly to Ross this method of voluntarily providing reference created a hostile environment, defamed the character of each individual listed in her written document. According to Walsh (2013), defamation claims is when a person makes a statement about another person, that may damage his or her reputation and the ability for him or her to provide for self. Ross as an employer has a right to provide background information to future employer but attack of an individual’s character or providing meritless information is inappropriate and unjust. “A statement is defamatory per se if it tends to disparage a person in the way of person’s office, profession or trade” Nichols v. Item Publishers, 309 N.Y. 596, 132 N.E.2d 860 (1956). Ross directly states in her letter, “I do not recommend”, which bring in the question the character and ability to perform work, of the individuals listed, including Davis. According to Ballam (2002), employers are often caught in a tough situation of potential liability if the employer chooses to provide reference information as well as if they chose not to. Employers have a duty

If a defamatory statement made of a class or group can reasonably be understood to refer to every member of it, each one has a cause of action. In Pryke v The Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1984) 37 SASR 175, a 'Letter to the Editor' published in The Advertiser criticised the conduct of proceedings by an Industrial Commissioner, without specifying by name which of the 4 Commissioners had been concerned. All 4 Commissioners succeeded on the basis that the letter was defamatory of each of them. In Bjelke Petersen v Warburton [1987] 2 QdR 465, the Leader of the Opposition made statements about the 'government's corruption and its mismanagement', and said he would be asking questions about 'which Ministers had their hands in the till'. This was held capable of being defamatory of each of the 18 members of the Ministry. However, if the class is composed of too many people, then the matter will be incapable of identifying any particular individual.

Several states allow ‘privileges’ that enable the dismissal of defamation cases without trial. Such privileges include the alleged defamatory statement being considered ‘fair comment and criticism’ if on matters

Contingent Liability is a condition that refers to the possibility of a future event happening and addresses the responsibility of the party liable should the event take place. In today’s real estate market both sellers and buyers may have contingencies stated in the terms and conditions for selling and purchasing a home. The most common contingent liability are guarantees to debt.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom’s decision in Mohamud represents a subtle yet fundamental change to the area of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability derives from a combination of legal principles and judicial discretion. It is not the result of a clearly developed, logical legal principle . The moving landscape of vicarious liability, as evidenced in Mohamud, can be attributed largely to the courts desire to protect vulnerable plaintiffs. This has occurred by liberal application of existing legal principles and expansive use of judicial discretion.

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson created a definition of a ‘neighbour’ towards a duty of care in negligence within the bounds of an indirect causal link without the added implication of a willful act or inherently dangerous goods. This provided a mechanism for a third party to go beyond the doctrine of privity and sue even if not a direct party to a contract.

The case of Donoghue versus Stevenson was a landmark case in Scottish and English tort law, establishing from that point forward a precedent for identification of negligence as a determination of liability. My colleague's posting provides some interesting insight into how this precedent was arrived at. The posting also leaves room for yet more extensive discussion on the legal implications of the 1932 decision.