Employer’s liability is a section of Tort Law that deals with the liability, employers’ have for occupational injuries to their employees arising from their negligence. At the start there was a slow start to impose liability in negligence on employers in relation to injuries to their employees. This meant there was little protection for employees within their workspace in respect to health and safety.
Employer’s liability didn’t occur until the early part of the nineteenth century. The laissez-faire philosophy conquered this time period and stated that work related injuries were naturally going to happen but was essential in the long run. It was stated in Potts v Plunkett that if the employees…
“Chose to accept dangerous employment for an appropriate payment, they should not impose on their employer the obligation to compensate them when things go wrong.”
This policy effected all the legal concepts of implied contractual terms, absence of legal duty of care , contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk and the doctrine of “common employment” during this time period. Eventually the doctrine was changed and employers were responsible to different types of liability caused to their employees by the negligence of their fellow employees. Overtime, the previous judicial mechanisms were broken down and has been fast and essential. Eventually the doctrine of “common employment” and the other enforced concepts were repealed in the form of statue; “Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1958”.
Other systems have also been set up to help people who requite compensation for work related injuries and was established in 1897, originally under judicial control, the Workman’s compensation Act 1897 and the Workmen’s...
... middle of paper ...
... Barclay v An Post  Ir Jur Rep 31 at 40.
Department of Posts and Telegraphs
Section 2; Civil Liability Act 1961
The leading English authority is Walker v Northumberland  1 All ER 737
McHugh v Minister for Defence, High Court, 28 January 1999
Curran v Cadbury  2 ILRM 343
White Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police  3 WLR 1510
McLoughlin v O’Brian  1AC 410
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police  1AC 310
Page v Smith  1 AC 155
White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police  2 AC 455
Curran v Cadbury  2 ILRM 343, plaintiff sustained psychiatric injury when she turned on a machine where she worked, believing she killed or seriously injured a fellow employee who was working inside the machine without her knowledge. The judges classified her as a primary victim.
Mc Mahon & Binchy
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- In this essay we are able to identify the Law of tort and present a case from New Zealand covering tort of negligence and vicarious liability. The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin term tortem to twist and implies conduct which is twisted or tortious. It now means a breach of some duty independent of contract giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which compensation is recoverable. A Tort is a species of civil injury or wrong no civil injury is to be classed as a tort unless the appropriate remedy for it is an action for damages.... [tags: Tort, Tort law, Negligence, Strict liability]
909 words (2.6 pages)
- Businesses need to be aware of all instances of when and where they ask employees to perform their job duties. Employees also need to be aware of what the company expects of them when performing their job. If their job requires time away from the office the principal can be held liable for actions their employees take while doing work within their scope of employment. In the following paragraphs we will discuss areas of Agency Law and how it applies to the employer, agent and employee. Vicarious Liability is the theory in which the Respondeat Superior Doctrine was derived which means "let the master answer" (Cheeseman, 2007, pg.... [tags: Agency Law, Employer, Employee]
793 words (2.3 pages)
- Introduction: Tort is defined as conditions where the illegal conduct of one party causes harm to another party. For example, party A had to face loss due to unethical or wrongful deeds of party B. Tort can be either negligent that is unintentional or intentional. Some examples of intentional torts include fraud, defamation, offense, insult, assault or interference among others. For example, during a business meeting, an employer suffers from reputation loss or insult due to the wrong deeds of another employer, with whom he had a clash before.... [tags: Tort law, Tort, Negligence, Law]
1254 words (3.6 pages)
- Tort, is a critical subject of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, latin word for wrong, is the action of causing harm or loss to another person or party . When there is an act of tort, the person who has committed the tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Despite crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes  simply because a tort may not have broken a law so it does not amount to criminal offense.... [tags: Tort, Tort law, Negligence, Common law]
1070 words (3.1 pages)
- 4.0 Scope of Liability 4.1. Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability refers to an employer’s liability for the negligent acts of its employees pursuant to s 32I of the CLA. Schools are vicariously liable for the acts of their teachers or other employees in the course of their employment (‘authorised acts’) as well as unauthorised acts so connected with authorised acts that they may be regarded as modes, albeit improper modes, of executing an authorised act. This remains the case even if the school has expressly prohibited the way in which the teacher performed the act.... [tags: Tort law, Tort, Law, Common law]
1122 words (3.2 pages)
- Summative Assignment Part A Tort of Negligence This essay will look at whether or not liability would be justified in the following three cases. It will also look at cases in law which could justify the outcome to the cases. This essay also looks and statues which are relevant to the cases in this essay In the first case Daniel was known to be less than competent at driving a fork lift which resulted in the death of Harold so in this this case it is most likely that the employer would be liable because of the three part test that is Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) A.C 562 the first part of the test is duty of care owed to him by the defendant ,both the employer and Daniel broke the duty of care... [tags: Law, Tort, Tort law, Donoghue v Stevenson]
907 words (2.6 pages)
- There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen.... [tags: Tort Law]
1121 words (3.2 pages)
- Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss . The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes  simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).... [tags: Tort, Tort law, Engineering, Application software]
982 words (2.8 pages)
- 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 th... [tags: Legal Case Review, Law]
1963 words (5.6 pages)
- The social effects of the laws regarding the liability of teachers is an important thing to consider as laws are instigated to protect people and so if they are not being as beneficial as possible to all those involved as well as the surrounding community, then they need to be reviewed. Liability claims against teachers more often than not result in avoidable court costs and the judge deeming the teacher not liable for the injury of the child. This is why it is not particularly advantageous for the family of an injured student to follow up the claim in court.... [tags: Tort, Tort law, Education, Injury]
959 words (2.7 pages)