The Main Justification For Vicarious Liability

A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.

A strict liability offence is one where it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove any mens rea. In most cases of strict liability even if one did not have the intent to commit a crime, however reasonable, in relation to a particular element of the actus reus of an offence, they can still be convicted. This can be shown in reference to Prince and Hibbert. Prince (1875) the girl was taken by Prince even though he knew she was in the possession of her father as he believed she was 18. Mens rea was needed for him to be sentenced and this was recognized as he had the necessary intention to remove her. Hibbert (1869) the defendant had sexual intercourse with a 14 year old

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?

In certain situations, a duty of care is owed to another person. For example, a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on. The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case;

The issue in this case is whether under Tennessee Code Annotated § 44-8-413, our client, Kevin Gates, can be held responsible for his neighbor’s dog bite injuries, depending on his knowledge of the potentially “dangerous propensities” of his three dogs.

“If the behavior of the defendant that killed a person did it on purpose and whether that person expected to have his/her actions to cause death.”

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

Relevant law: Standard of care requires the defendant to do what an ‘ordinary, reasonable and prudent’ person would do.[4 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 ACT S42]4 If the government’s omission is so

This paper will discuss the legal issues in Case Example B. In the case of Wilbur versus XYZ Counseling Agency, the legal issue involves Wilbur suing XYZ Counseling Agency for being beaten during a counseling session by Chuck, who is an anger management counselor for the company. The plaintiff Wilbur believes that XYZ Counseling Company should be held responsible for the behaviors of their employees. Why did Chuck become angry and beat up Wilbur? Did Chuck violate the intentional torts against person? If so, which tort did Chuck violate? Did Chuck owe a duty of care to Wilbur? If so, was there a break of the duty of care? Why did XYZ Counseling Company hire Chuck with his history of negligence? If XYZ Counseling Agency has a specific policy against violence, why wasn’t Chuck disciplined accordingly for violating company policy? Should XYZ Counseling Company be held responsible for an employee’s act of negligence? For these reasons, before a decision can be delivered, there are a number of questions that need to be answered by the plaintiff and the dependent

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

Contingent Liability is a condition that refers to the possibility of a future event happening and addresses the responsibility of the party liable should the event take place. In today’s real estate market both sellers and buyers may have contingencies stated in the terms and conditions for selling and purchasing a home. The most common contingent liability are guarantees to debt.

“In the majority of cases that come before the courts, whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care can be determined from precedent created by earlier cases; for example manufacturers of goods owe a duty of care to consumers, motorist owe a duty of care to other road users, boat captains owe a duty of care to their passengers, teacher owe a duty of care to their students, occupier owe a duty of care to persons who come on to their property. . (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.165, 166 and 169).”

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

In order to have a proper trial, judges will have to bear in mind that

The principle of vicarious liability is very controversial as it is quite broad, and the fact that personal fault on behalf of the employer is not required means that it is sometimes more difficult to attribute blame on big companies or corporations than individuals. However, there are many aspects of vicarious liability that make it suitable for its use. In nearly every case the employer is in the best position financially to compensate a claimant as they always have the ‘deepest pocket’. The whole purpose of the law of tort is to compensate the victims, the resources in question that enable the employer to have the ‘deepest pocket is provided through insurance.