Under What Circumstances Can an Employer Be Held Vicariously Liable for the Torts of His Employees? and Why Should One Person Be Held Liable for the Torts Committed by Others?

• 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.

An employer can be vicarious liable for co-worker harassment under negligence principles if they knew or had reason to know or had reason to know that the harassment was occurring and did not take adequate steps to address the harassment (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(d); EEOC v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc., 2010; Porter v. Erie Foods Int'l, Inc., 2009; Barrett, 2006; Mandell, 2005). Employers can also be held liable for harassment by a supervior. (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998; Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth,

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?

Contributory Negligence: A court may find a plaintiff contributory negligent or partially responsible for their injuries.

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

12. Which of the following torts committed by an agent is the liability of the principal?

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.

* 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.

Explain how respondeat superior and vicarious liability applies to employees of a health care facility. Include how these doctrines will apply not only to direct care givers but to office personnel and administration as well.

Vicarious liability is a doctrine where a company is held liable for the negligent acts of the employees while the doctrine of identification supposes a situation where the crimes committed by the company can be directed towards the directors or managers of the company who are the directing mind and will of the company and can be held liable for the acts committed by a separate legal entity namely the company. In the case of Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass, the Appellant was offering a discount on washing powder and this was advertised on posters displayed in stores, but the Defendant did not find the packet of washing powder at the reduced price, as advertised. The Defendant therefore filed a complaint under the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 for falsely advertising the price of washing powder. In defense

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.

Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to

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 .