Respondeat Superior Notes Essay

According to section 26 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic.), the result of a successful plea of contributory negligence will be an apportionment of damages. So, if a defendant is a negligent without any contributory negligence by the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive 100 per cent of the damage, but if the plaintiff is held to be contributory negligent to the extent of 40 per cent, then the plaintiff will only receive 60 per cent of the damage. (FoBL, 2005, p84) For instance, the case of Liftronic Pty Ltd v. Unver[10], the defendant (Liftronic Pty Ltd) was found liable in negligence but Unver’s damages were reduced by 60 per cent due to his contributory negligence.

There is also the concept of secondary liability. This means that if, for example, an employment agency

victim in the position he/she was before the tort was committed. Difficult to do, so we

An employer mandate that demand company with fifty or more employees to offer coverage or pay fine,

This includes any such benefits for which the Insured Person or the Insured Person’s family is eligible or that are paid to the Insured Person, to a third party on the Insured Person’s behalf, pursuant to any:

On the off chance that a worker gets into an accident while he is heading to a customer's office to drop off paperwork, the employer may be at risk since it occurred during work. In that circumstance, the worker was utilizing the car for business. However, if a worker rather chooses to go on a 2 hour unapproved outing to the shopping centre and gets into an accident then, the employer will probably not be held at risk on the grounds that the worker was utilizing the car for absolutely individual reasons.

In the case presented, Donna Driver admitted liability in a car accident with Vic Victim. Her liability coverage through Gekko is $100,000. Vic’s medical bills alone are close to $100,000 and he may be granted more than that because of missed work and pain and suffering.

Jose Carcamo et al., Defendants and Appellants in the Supreme Court of California held that tort liability based on negligent hiring and retention is a cause of action distinct from vicarious liability based on respondeat superior. In the case against Jose Carcamo, it was stated he hit a car while driving his truck for his employer, causing Renae Diaz to lose control of her vehicle. The jury awarded Diaz $22.5 million in damages in which Sugar Transport, Carcamo’s employer, was also help liable based on its negligent hiring of Carcamo. Sugar Transport contended that while it is liable for Carcamo’s driving, it should not be held liable for negligent hiring and retention. The court reviewed negligent hiring and retention as theories of liability independent of vicarious liability. The court stated that the liability comes from hiring and retaining an employee who is unfit to conduct his or her duties. Due to the fact that the employer had sufficient enough reason to believe that undue harm could exist with the employment of Carcamo, they were held liable for negligent hiring. Carcamo’s driving history included previous accidents that were relevant to his job assignment. Sugar Transport thus disregarded his past driving record and the danger that could come with his driving for the company. The jury properly considered that evidence when apportioning fault for the

For a negligence claim to be successful, it must be proven that the State Of Victoria owed our client such

Case Example A: Elaine has sued Jerry because Jerry fired her. Elaine was on the job for two months.The job offer letter that Jerry had sent her mentioned the great career opportunities at the company and stated that her annual salary would be $30,000. The company is an employment‐at‐will employer. Elaine was given no reason for the termination. After the termination, Jerry hired a man named Kramer, who had less job experience and education than Elaine, for the position. Elaine has sued to get her job back.

"[a]n insurance company has a duty to act in good faith in settling claims and a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action by the insured." Pasipanki v. Morton, 61 Ohio App. 3d 184, 185, 572 N.E.2d 234 (1990) (quoting Bean v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. No. 13543, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4275, 1988 WL 114464 at *1 (Oct. 26, 1988)). Gekko did not act in good faith to settle Vic’s claim against Donna, and their failure to do so enables Donna has a cause of action against Gekko.

A defendant, like TEACHER, would be held liable for negligence, if the plaintiff, JENNIFER, can prove that there was a duty owed to her, that TEACHER breached that duty, the breach of that duty was the actual and proximate cause of Betty’s injuries.

It is apparent that Steven was not paying enough attention when crossing the road on the night of the accident. Thus, Steven was, to a degree, also negligent as he did not adequately check that the road was clear. When deciding the degree of contributory negligence the courts must look at what reduction of damages pay-out is "just and equitable having regard 's to the claimant 's share in the responsibility for the damage". In order to reach a percentage of blameworthiness for each side, a broad comparison must be made of both the individual contributions from the pursuer and the defender, looking at both the causation of damage and the blameworthiness.

Workers’ compensation provides compensation benefits to employees for disabilities due to personal injury or disease sustained while in the performance of their duty. The purpose of Alabama’s Workers’ Compensation laws is to ensure proper payment of benefits of employee’s injuries on the job or who contract a work related illness and encouraged safety in the workplace. These benefits include payment of medical expenses and compensation for wages loss. Dependents are also entitles to payment of benefits of employees who die from work-related injuries or diseases. An employer that has five or more employees is required to have worker’s compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation is designed to protect workers

The court system does not seem to base their judgment on legal elements and legal facts but a major consideration on public policy and interest. This can be seen in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital , where the ratio is that the patient would have died anyway in spite of the doctor’s examination. To impose a liability on the doctor would give rise to many claims, involving many unnecessary claims. However, doctors’ duty is to examine a patient and decide on the plan of treatment, where in this case, the doctor did not even examine the patient. The reluctance of the court to impose a liability on public bodies can also be seen in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . The court was reluctant to impose a liability on the police force, even when the Taylor Report reported that the accident was caused by the negligence of the police force, as they let too many supporters in. There are enough facts in these two cases to impose a liability on the doctor and the police department respectively, however, the reluctant approach from the court towards public bodies have resulted in unsuccessful claims in these two cases.