Vicarious Liability

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 the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

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.

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

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

The principle of direct liability is an individual or business established on negligence or any results in harming or damaging to another individual or their property. Hospitals or providers are liable for the conduct and treatments provided by their physician members. Any damage or treatment a physician’s provides is covered by the hospital. Enterprise liability is a legal matter that a related corporations or people can be held responsible for any actions, damage or wrong

Vicarious Liability assigns the liability to the accomplice, This makes the young kid who is with someone that hurts another kid at fault to. As teenagers people do stupid stuff, and they never think of the consequences. Teens have to be careful because they can be charged for being an accomplice for what someone else wrong. do not know if this is always fair because the teen may not know their friends intention. The felony murder rule say the accomplice is at fault if the offender murder someone, and the accomplice is with them even if they did not know they intended to commit murder. Altercations start all the time between teens how can they know if their friend will pull out a gun or not. Even the best of people have pulled out guns. Teens

Roland is an employee of kingston. While Roland was leaving a client’s site and heading across town in the opposite direction of his office to purchase football tickets for himself, the company’s van driven by Roland accidentally hit the back of a car. Will Kingston be vicariously liable as an employer?

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.

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

If the resort is found only to vicariously liable as the principal, with Tex and Rex acting as the resort's agents, but was forced to pay more than its pro rata share of damages, the resort would retain its entitlement to contribution, or partial reimbursement, from the other defendants. The process of contribution assures that "tortfeasor A may turn to B and C for partial reimbursement because he paid more than his pro rata share of damages" (Edwards, Edwards & Wells, 2011, p. 454), which is especially applicable

* Make the D play the Employer back for the damages that they had to pay out. Fully pick up your liability instead of contributing.

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.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom’s decision in Mohamud represents a subtle yet fundamental change to the area of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability derives from a combination of legal principles and judicial discretion. It is not the result of a clearly developed, logical legal principle . The moving landscape of vicarious liability, as evidenced in Mohamud, can be attributed largely to the courts desire to protect vulnerable plaintiffs. This has occurred by liberal application of existing legal principles and expansive use of judicial discretion.