Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Vicarious liability bits of law
Employers liability in tort
Vicarious liability bits of law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Vicarious liability bits of law
Negligence and Intentional Tort Liability in Critter Sitters Legal Case
Jason as an employee of Critter Sitters falls under the doctrine of respondeat superior. This rule of law imposes vicarious liability or secondhand liability on the Critter Sitters when Jason through negligence lost control of the dog in the lobby (Twomey & Jennings, 2014, p. 832). June was knocked to the ground while Jason was acting within the scope of his employment duties (Twomey & Jennings, 2014, p. 833). Furthermore, Critter Sitters is also vicariously liable for the intentional act of Jason when he kicked June in retaliation for complaining because they are answerable for the manner in which its agents conduct themselves in doing the business of the employer (Twomey & Jennings, 2014, p. 833). When a Great Dane named Pooky Bear that was under the control of another employee named June bit Jason, she was negligent in her duties to control the dog (Twomey & Jennings, 2014, pp. 832-833). Critter Sitters is vicariously liable for the injuries Jason sustained to his leg from the dog bite (Twomey & Jennings, 2014, p. 833).
These torts and crimes; intentional and negligent acts, committed by Critter Sitters employees are exemplified by Ralls v. Mittlesteadt, 596 S.W.2d 349 (Ark. 1980) (Twomey & Jennings, 2014, pp. 828-829). Just because Jason was conducting his duties as an employees is no excuse that he is not responsible for torts committed against June, the customer, when he kicked her.
Because Critter Sitters is now a corporation the liability for these claims is limited to the amount of capital that each shareholder has in the business (Twomey & Jennings, 2014, p. 917). However, the required Commercial General Liability (CGL) and Work Compe...
... middle of paper ...
...m.pdf
HREA. (2007). Sexual Orientation and Human Rights. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from Human Rights Education Associates: http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=161
Robinson, B. (2002, December 18). RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS . Retrieved from Religious Tolerance : http://www.religioustolerance.org/rfra2.htm
The Religious Exemption to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (2001, August 1). Retrieved from The Leadership Conference : http://www.civilrights.org/lgbt/enda/religious-exemption-1.html
Twomey, D. P. and Jennings, M. M. (2014). Anderson's business law and the legal environment: Comprehensive volume (22nd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Work Injury Compensation Insurance. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2014, from Ministry of MANPOWER: http://www.mom.gov.sg/workplace-safety-health/work-injury-compensation/Pages/WIC_Insurance.aspx
It was found in the respondents submissions that a duty of care was necessary. The issue of negligence he believed was unsustainable as the risks were minimal and it was not unusual to take one’s eyes off the road. Causation was not satisfied as the judge concluded that the respondent would not have had enough time in any circumstance to avoid a collision with the cow.
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14
Melvin, S. P. (2011). The legal environment of business: A managerial approach: Theory to practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Duty: The general rule for premises liability is that there is a duty to keep the premises in reasonably safe conditions. Vicky was a trespasser on the land because she had no express or implied consent to be there. In light of this relationship, because Vicky was a trespasser, under the traditional common law categories, there is no duty but to not willfully or wantonly harm the trespasser.
The issue is what duty of care did C.D. Management owe to Richard. Mounsey v. Ellard, held that a landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to all lawful visitors. 363 Mass. 693, 707 (1973). The Court stated “that there is significant difference in the legal status of one who trespasses on another's land as opposed to one who is on the land under some color of right-such as a licensee or invitee.” Id at n.7. Although the general rule for care owed to trespassers is to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. Schofield v. Merrill 386 Mass. 244, 245 (1982). Mounsey allowed for the possibility of exceptions when dealing with trespassers, “The possible difference in classes of trespassers is miniscule compared to the
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
Religious Freedom Restoration Act In this paper I will describe the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This Act was used to contradict the decision of the court case of Employment Division v. Smith, which allowed the government to forbid any religious act without giving a reason. The RFRA brought back the requirement that the government provide an adequate reason to forbid any religious act. The government once again had to show that the act was of compelling interest to the state.
Thus, the defendant was charged with negligence by making its employee work unreasonably long work hours when the manager knew his employee, Matt, might be risking his and others' life in danger by driving back home from work after his long shift.
Pets have been a part of the American life for forever. It comes to no surprise that the most popular pet in the United States is the dog. There are over 68 million dogs owned with a range of 130 dog breeds. Over the past ten years, it has become clear that the rate of dog bites has steadily been rising. There are over 4.7 million reported cases of dog bites each year in the United States alone. State officials have been hounding the dog world for years over this issue. Instead of blaming certain dog breeds for violence, people should instead be looking at the owners themselves (Pet-Owner Liability).
Wardle, Lynn D. "Marriage and Religious Liberty: Comparative Law Problems and Conflict of Laws Solutions." Journal of Law & Family Studies 12.2 (2010): 315-364.Academic Search Complete. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.
Wintermute, R. (2002). Sexual Orientation and Human Rights: The United States Constitution, the European Convention and the Canadian Charter. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Paperbacks.
Robinson, B. A. (2000, September 26). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Retrieved May 29, 2010, from Religious Tolerance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rfra.htm
"7 Myths About Arizona's Religious Freedom Law." Breitbart News Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
Estreicher, S., and Michael J., (2010). Religion and the U.S. workplace. Human Rights, 33( 3), 17–20.