Principles Of Torts B : Research Essay

Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or the responsibility of any third party that had the ability or duty to control the activities of a violator. Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment. Employers will only be liable for the torts of their employees. They will not usually be liable for the torts of their independent contractors. It is therefore necessary to establish the status of the tortfeasor (Law Teacher 2012).

Gonzaga university is well respected private school in the west of the USA. The school prepares students to get their dream job. Most of the student get the job of their dreams. Unfortunately, one of the students did not get job because of the school. The graduate asked Gonzaga university provide an affidavit of good moral character from the collage to the future employer. The teacher certification specialist at university provided damaging information. The specialist mention student by name and revealed that student was engaged in sexual misconduct. The student did not received affidavit and a job, because of the school official overheard conversation about student had sexual misconduct by undergraduate student. After that, University made an investigation and refuse to certify to student affidavit of good moral character. The student sued the university. I take side of the student, because university should not give the student’s information.

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.

Originally, Mr. Pearson sued Custom Cleaners for the loss of his pants, alleging claims of common law fraud and that they violated the CPPA by displaying signs that read “Satisfaction Guaranteed”, “All Work Done on Premises” and “Same Day Service”. The amount Mr. Pearson was seeking for relief was $67 million dollars, since that is what it would take for the Chungs to satisfy his claim (Pearson 2). It was Mr. Pearson’s belief, that there is an unconditional warranty that Custom Cleaners now must provide since they have the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign hanging in there store. (Pearson 4). In the pretrial discovery, the court confirmed that all work was done on premises, and the judge granted summary judgment to the defendants on the portion of fraud. Mr. Pearson amended his lawsuit and stated that he is “not suing for lost pants”, but only regarding the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign. (Pearson 4). Mr. Pearson insists that the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign is unconditional and limitless (Pearson 7). In addition, the claim tickets that are printed have limitations on the back which further limit the unlimited guarantee that is provided by the signs hanging in the store, which is a violation of the FTC regulations regarding “Satisfaction Guaranteed” (Pearson 20). The court, however, ruled that the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” means how a

he Tort Law is a civil injury or wrongful act that is committed against another person or property resulting in harm and his compensated by money damages. To sue for a tort a person must have suffered a mental or physical injury that was caused by the physician or the physician's employee. The tort reform is a "group of ideas and laws designed to change the way or civl justice system works." The tort reform movement was started in 1970 and headed up by insurance companies and large corporations in which to attack the civil justice system and change laws not by case by case but by legislation.

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.

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.

Vicarious Liability imposes criminal liability on one party for the criminal acts of another party. I believe it should and shouldn't exist in some cases. It shouldn't exist in a case if your friend needed to borrow your car for the day and found out it was wrecked, with vicarious liability the owner of that car and driver would be both liable even if the owner had no clue that the friend was going to wreck the car that day. You cant control others actions, only your own. It should exist because employer's would be responsible for any employee's actions. For example if one of the emplyee's took the company car just to use it one day, maybe because his car was down the employer wouldn't be held liable but if he was sent out on a business trip and wrecks the company car, the employer would be held liable for his or hers actions. Parents can be held responsible for the actions of their children by the child committing a wrongful act while following the directions from the parent, the parent may be vicarious liable.

*1804 As it happens, deterrence had not played a significant role in traditional tort scholarship. When Landes and Posner expounded their theory of deterrence as a basic tort objective, they reviewed the record of early tort writings to determine what support they could find for this theory; they ended up merely reporting that “with the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to find . . . prefigurings of the modern economic approach in Holmes’s chapters on tort law and

Although Lord Phillips came to the correct conclusion, he did not provide a coherent structure for courts to follow when making future decisions., his analysis is useful for cases with very similar features to this one, but will be of limited use to cases where the circumstances are different, this will of course be most cases and therefore he should have provided more guidance, this is particularly evident when looking at the features which he thought made their relationship closer than that of an employer and employees. There is no discernible logic which links the two factors together, and it is unlikely that a court will be able to infer from those two features a common rule which can be applied to other situations.

The sexual assault of a student by a teacher is a not only a criminal offence, but may form the basis for an action in tort. There has been debate in common law jurisdictions over the last decade or so as to whether a school authority may be liable in damages for a sexual assault by a teacher. Where the tort happens because of an intentional wrong by the teacher, and the school is not at fault, the courts have been divided on whether to apply vicarious liability or breach of a non-delegable duty. The leading Australian case on this matter is New South Wales v Lepore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland (Lepore).

So unless an employee is working under an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, all employees are considered to be employed-at-will and they may terminate at any time with or without cause by the business when notice is given. Many people are under the assumption that they can only be terminated or fired for a good or just cause like stealing or harassment but this is a mistaken belief. So some employees will sue their employer when they are terminated if they believe it was without just cause even though “disclaimers in employment contracts aimed at preserving employers ' control over at-will decisions on employment, benefits, discipline or termination

Tort is defined as an act that is wrong, except for a breach of contract or trust in or an infringement of a right. It may result in an injury to an individual or group of people, their assets and belongings, status etc for which they are legally entitled for a compensation. The term negligence is the failure to provide reasonable care, breach on duty of care resulting in damage or injury (What is tort 2013). Therefore tort of negligence is a disruption of duty and responsibility or a failure of a party to maintain standard of consideration required by law, resulting in harm, injury or damage suffered by another party. Therefore the law of tort is simply used to compensate the loss or injury without punishing the defendant. (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

In a claim for damages the first issue is remoteness of damage; how far down the sequence of cause and effect should the consequences of breach be traced before they become so indirect that they should be ignored.