Should A Business Have Civil Liability For The Criminal Acts Of Its Employee?

• Harassment by a third party: employers are potentially liable for the harassment of staff or customers by people they don't directly employ, such as a contractor.

Further area left unanswered by Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security was highlighted in McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League Footbal Club (2005)[16]. This case stated that employer is imposed vicarious liability upon employer for animosity act or criminal act by employees. The case also stated that there must be closely connection within the authority of employees and act by which their employer was considered to be vicariously liable. This case may resolve the entire issues rise in Sprof bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security.

This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .

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

Organizations that hire employees or volunteers are accountable for their actions and must make sure, as best they can, that the people representing them can be trusted with their clients. Employers should be well-informed on the risk of failing to conduct screening checks of potential volunteers or employees, as they may be held legally and morally accountable through vicarious liability. Vicarious liability makes an organization accountable for the behavior of volunteers or employees under certain circumstances. It functions on the supposition the organization has aggravated the risk that harm would take place. It makes sure that organizations take all rational measures to decrease the risk of harm by using methods such as screening. "If they fail to take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm to their clients, an organization (such as a school,

* The liability does not fall on one individual instead it is assumed by the business in a corporation. Individuals representing the company can still be personally sued in some states.

An employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions his employee commits during the course and scope of his employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In order for an employer to be liable there must be evidence that during the time of the negligent or omitted act, there was a master-servant relationship. Studebaker v. Nettie 's Flower Garden, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 229 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992); Jones v. Brashears, 107 S.W.3d 445 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Bargfrede v. American Income Life Ins. Co., 21 S.W.3d 160 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359 (Mo. 1963). Respondent superior applies when the master had the right or the power to control and direct the conduct of another. Bargfrede, 21 S.W.3d at 162. The master-servant relationship arises when the person charged as a master has the right to direct the method by which the master 's service is performed. Id.

In R v. Redfern & Dunlop Ltd. (Aircraft Division) , the Court held that where the employees who were not in the decision making level could not be identifiable with the company and therefore were not deemed to be the controlling mind of the company. The question that comes up is that if a person at a lower level commits a crime in the name of the company, the company cannot be held liable for the same. This may pose to be a problem in the sense that the company may make a division between the senior management and the employees to avoid criminal proceedings against them

The court verified that a person is a partner and jointly liable with others in the firm “if his agreement with them is that he should be paid by the firm a fixed sum, irrespective of profits, for work done by him”.

First, "Corporate cases should not be resolved without a clear plan to resolve related individual cases before the status of limitation expires and declinations to individuals in such cases must be memorialized" (Yates 6). To fulfill this requirement, when a corporation is working toward closure or to resolve a case, the company needs to be accompanied by a proper and responsive plan for the prosecution of alleged engaged employees or an explanation for a declination of prosecution. Second, "Absent extraordinary circumstances, no corporate resolution will provide protection from criminal or civil liability for any individuals" (Yates 5). Under this step, the Department of Justice would preserve its ability to pursue individuals when reaching a settlement with the corporation. It will no longer allow a corporation to shield its employees from prosecution by entering a resolution. Thus, due to these two key steps, I believe corporations will work with federal prosecutors in a proactive approach to identify all the related information of the alleged misconduct and the responsible

A) a company can control the actions of its own employees, including non-sales job tasks.

Paul Morel, a former employee of Baxter Heaton, LLP, has brought suit against his former employer for sexual harassment and hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The defendant, Baxter Heaton, respectfully requests the court to grant summary judgment against Morel. A reasonable employee would not have perceived the work environment to be hostile and Morel himself did not perceive the environment to be hostile. Also, Morel cannot impute his co-worker’s conduct to the firm because the firm was not negligent in handling the matter.

The answer that is yes, because the company did background checks and references and noted that Rhonda had already been in four different altercations of assault with customers. In the broad vision the company knew there might be a possibility of Rhonda attacking a customer since she is a salesperson. One might assume that in order to sell a product the employee would come into contact with the customer. Sandley knew there was a chance of an altercation but still hired and retained Rhonda. In the case Medina v Grahams Cowboy, the court ruled in favor of damages to the plaintiff because the bar knew of the doorman’s reputation and still hired him, which made the bar negligent ( Medina v. Graham's Cowboys, Inc., 1992). This can also lead into the second part of what actions did Sandley do once the allegations were made about their employee and if negligence would fall on the company. If management recorded each incident and did not reprimand the employees, then that would also be negligence on the company. The company would know what an employee did and if there was a reprimand to the action. In the case of Rhonda, the first assault should have ended in her termination effective immediately. For Martina, who did not have a background of violence the company would not be considered at fault the first time. However, this goes back to how did management handle the first assault and why would they keep her in sales. Sandley would be personally responsible for the next two assault victims because Martina has already struck a customer and now she is a liability that the company knows about and they would be held for negligence. The last question revolves around was it Sandley Vacuum’s intention or policy that the employees had to follow rules about how to deal with customers and that such a policy should result in physical contact by

In White collar crime ,I do think the employer should be charged with negligence even if it was the employee fault. The employer should be held responsible. Employers should thoroughly check out the people they hire because their previous jobs can help employers know if they need to hire them or not. They should require background checks be done. I think if a person charged with a criminal crime can get charged as an accomplice even if they did nothing. White collar crimes should have some type of consequence. When a person steal from people in the name of that company, I feel the company should pay that money back, and that employee should go jail because most of the time they hurt people who have worked hard for their money. These people

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