The Common Law Concept Of Vicarious Liability

• 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.

Having established the purpose of strict liability, it is evident as to why it can be seen as a controversial area in law making and this essay will outline some of the arguments for and against it that are commonly put forward on the effective enforcement of the law and the maintenance of standards.

38. Which of the following describes when an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts of the “servant” or employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment?

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.

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,

Compensatory damages of more than $68,000 were awarded and the court held that Bugden’s club bore vicarious liability for assault during being employed as a player. Vicarious liability is the legal liability imposed on one person or agent (e.g. an employer) for the wrongful acts of another, when those acts were done within the scope of the legal relationship between them, such as employment.

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.

2) A liability that may extend from an employee to the employer if the employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time the liability arose is called:

This paper describes the impact of the decision made in the case of Tesco Stores Ltd v Brent LBC on the law and its effects on the corporate world, and the comparison between the doctrine of vicarious liability that it outlines and the doctrine of identification that was used earlier to determine the liability of corporations in cooperate crime.

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

There are several aspects where you, the nursing home, may be liable. These instances include the failure of the receptionist, acting in the course of employment, to notify management. Additionally with regards to your liability for the actions of the nurse it can be proven that the nurse acted within the scope of their employment, vicarious liability. However it is not enough to rely on the case, New South Wales v Lepore, which states that an employer is not liable for an employee with reference to a criminal act merely because the workplace provides an opportunity for an employee to do something morally, and professionally wrong. We must first explore whether or not the nurse was acting within their

Establishing whether not the current case is analogous to cases in which a duty of care already been determine. For instance the category of which duty of care has been held not to exist. The law justifies all these through the word responsibility. Everyone has a responsibility for their actions. This same word, responsibility, is also used to justify strict and vicarious liability. Parents, guardians, employers and other similar persons are responsible for their wards and employees. I think this is also a balancing of the scale. Due to circumstances such as incapacity in law of inability to pay, the injured party may be

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

In a departure from the traditional application of long standing case law, the close connection test was altered. The crucial change was to give rise to vicarious liability if the exchange involved a seamless chain of events . This development came following crucial developments in the Christian Brothers case. Where the vicarious liability relationship was extended to those analogous to employment . The other crucial development arose in Cox. In which Lord Reed extended vicarious liability for a person acting in their own interests. However he stressed the importance of the person acting in the scope of the activities assigned to him by the defendant. The defendant in assigning these duties generates a risk of the tort .