Strict Liability Essay

losing her job, and that he fondled her in front of other employees. Vinson allegedly never reported the sexual harassment out of fear of losing her job. The court explained that there is no definitive rule for liability for an employer, but the bank is not completely free of liability just because Vinson did not make any reports of sexual harassment. The court decided that the bank was “absolutely liable” for sexual harassment from a supervisor, regardless of whether officials knew or should have

documents when (1) the products liability team inspected each document included in the discovery; (2) the inadvertent disclosure occurred once; (3) the degree of disclosure was miniscule; (4) timely objections were made at the deposition; and (5) opposing counsel had already built a case around documents that included correspondence that were intended to be privileged? BRIEF ANSWER Yes. This is due to the fact that reasonable precautions were taken by having the products liability team examine each document

submitted to prof. manjula batra | LAW OF TORTS PROJECT | VICARIOUS LIABILITY | | | SUBMITTED BY:VAIBHAV PRATAP SINGHFIRST SEMEMSTER, 2012BA., LL.B. (HONS.) | | ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would take this opportunity to thank the people who helped me in making this project which has been a learning experience. In that endeavour, first and foremost I would express my gratitude toward my professor of Law of Torts Ms Manjula Batra. Her immense knowledge and teaching skills along with her helping disposition

How do we justify imposing strict liability for some criminal offences? Strict liability offences are offences which do not require proof of mens rea. This means that the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant voluntarily committed a forbidden act without considering if the defendant had the intention. Strict liability is contained in statutes or statutory instruments, and occasionally found in common law. Common law offences of strict liability include criminal libel and blasphemous

his/her employees. And after that I will focus on some of the reasons why one person is held liable in certain situations for the torts committed by another person. And then I will finally finish the essay with a conclusion at the end. Vicarious liability is where one person is held liable for the torts of another, even though that person did not commit the act itself. For an employer to be held liable for the tort of her/his employees, three conditions must be fulfilled. First, it should be a tort

Seminar 7 Vicarious Liability The problem question deals mainly with the issue of Vicarious Liability and Negligence. In order to advise Jerry one would have to explore the rules of vicarious liability, relevant statute law and case law which may apply. Vicarious liability has been defined as the person who commits a wrong must be an employee and not an independent contractor, the employee must have committed a tort and the tort must have been in the course of employment. The doctrine of ‘vicarious

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION Liability is said to be 'vicarious' when one person is thought liable for wrongs committed by another. Vicarious liability is not a tort or a wrong in itself but a way in which liability may be imposed: a person may be directly liable for their own torts or vicariously liable for torts committed by third party. For example of vicarious liability in tort rise from the relationship of master and servant, this effectively means employer and employee. The regulation is that an employer

of International Education LLAW2006 Legal Aspects of Marketing Section 2 Group 18 - Written Assignment Name: Lee Kai Hei Ezra Student Number: 14682184 Content: (1) Case study of Simon and Jane - Background - Issue - Test for vicarious liability: - Analysis - Conclusion (2) Case Study of Li Hoi Shuen v Man Ming Engineering Trading Co. Ltd. [2006] 1 HKC 349 - Background - Issue - Analysis - Hold (3) Case Study of Ming An Insurance Co (HK) Ltd v Ritz Carlton Ltd (2005) 5 HKCFAR 569 - Background

Assignment 2: You are an Entrepreneur Roxanne Joseph-Jerry Strayer University ACC 557 Financial Accounting ­­­Professor Daniel Terfassa August 21, 2014 Table of Contents: Executive Summary Company Summary Start Up Summary Start Up Expenses Income Statement Balance Sheet Internal Control Compliance and Regulatory Bodies References Executive summary ABC Learning Academy aims to prepare its students to excel as young leaders of tomorrow by combining an exclusive collegiate-based