Essay about The English Law on Vicarious Liability

When the courses consider how much money damages P should get, the course tried to make D pay P back the amount of money damages that would put P back into the same position as if he had not been injured by D’neligence. In some case, even though the court may not be able to put P back in the exact same position he was in before, the court will make D pay P as much money as it takes to try to compensate P for his losses as much as the

Although the Health and Safety at work etc. Act 1974 provides criminal legislation for employers, there are various key health and safety requirements that identify a duty of care owed to an employee by an employer, that have been set via precedents. This essay aims to identify the key health and safety requirements owed by an employer to an employee, deriving from common law, including the principle of vicarious liability

But the Counsel said that the workman had died not because of the injury sustained in an accident, but it happened while he was under employment and therefore the employer is liable to pay the compensated amount. The insurer is liable to pay the amount only of the employer becomes insolvent or if the employer is an organization then at the time of winding up. But in this case no liability is fixed on the insurer to pay the amount since the risk was covered by a policy. The provisions contained in Section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Act are attracted and in this view of the matter, in both the cases, it was held that the Workmen's

If an employee gets into an accident while he is driving to a client’s office to drop off some paperwork, the employer may be liable since the accident accurred during the scope of employment. In that situation, the employee was using the car for the business. However, if the employee instead decides to go on a 2 hour unauthorized trip to the mall and gets into an accident during that time,

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

Equally important, vicarious liability is another notion that must be kept in mind as well. This liability exhibits that “an employer is 100% liable for an employee’s tortuous act during the course of employment.” ( Yates, Bereznicki-Korol & Clarke, 2011,p.349).

Vicarious liability refers to a scenario in which an individual or a given organization is held potentially liable for damages occurred that significantly led to harm (Bell, 2013). In a workplace setting, the organizations may be held responsible for any damage caused by its employees if the actions took placed during the employment.

The benefits of vicarious liability are four-fold: it allows a plaintiff access to a deep-pocketed defendant, acts as an incentive for defendants to ensure that their employees are carrying out their employment in a proper manner, ensures that employers are liable for employees’ acts whilst working to further the defendant’s business interests and “promotes business distribution.” Although the employer is financially liable for the acts of their employee, no fault is actually attributable to them. In order to find for vicarious liability, the task must be undertaken in the course of employment, meaning that it must be inextricably connected to a task the employer has assigned to the employee.

Vicarious Liability: A company’s responsibility for the damages caused by harassment, if the employee is in an authoritative position.

When hiring employees or joining companies it could create an unexpected impact. When hiring the XYZ Construction Company it put me at potential liability if there were damages to the neighbors yards or even the whole entire neighborhood. With the accident occurring on behalf of Fred, it made me liable to Mr. Jones with his accident. This is because I allowed the company XYZ to come into the area in order to make a new addition to my house, with the assumption that no one would be injured the liability of some of his injuries would remain on my responsibility. As for Fred, this would greatly impact him even more than the case against me. Since Fred was operating the machine he is the main cause to Mr. Jones pain and suffering. He would be highly

Prior to the establishment of workers’ compensation laws at the beginning of the 20th century, the civil courts were the only avenue for the adjudication of disputes over responsibility for employment-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths, and the courts could order employers to provide compensation to injured workers or the survivors of workers killed on the job if it was determined that the employer was negligent. Under the common-law doctrine of negligence, the

To decide whether a situation of vicarious liability arose, we must consider, firstly whether the tortfeasor was an employee of D and, secondly, if the tort was committed within the course of employment. If both questions are satisfied then the employer will become liable.

Negligence is used in tort in order to provide a remedy for those who have suffered any loss or injury, due to a defendant’s actions. If a defendant had a duty of care towards the claimant, then a remedy can be enforced to cover for any losses. Factual causation in negligence establishes whether it was the defendant in fact who caused the harm, in order to determine the factual causation, the ‘but for’ test is used. The ‘but for’ test includes asking the question of ‘but for the defendant’s carelessness, would the claimant have escaped harm?’ The factual causation would be determined if the answer is ‘yes’, as harm would have not occurred if the defendant did not breach the duty of care. If the answer is ‘no’ then the defendant would not be held liable.

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.

An employer is vicariously liable in relation to the acts of its employees. This includes liability to third parties for