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.
In the case of public schools, as agents of the government, the Crown has established policy in relation to Crown acceptance of legal liability. The Crown accepts full and sole responsibility for all claims where the employee has diligently and conscientiously endeavoured to carry out their assigned duties.
4.2 Non-delegable liability
Under general negligence principles, once an employee’s actions fall outside the scope of the duties appointed to them, their employer is not liable. Under a number of circumstances, however, the employer will be liable to people in their care for injuries that are caused by the tort of their
…show more content…
Historically, the Crown had immunity from being called as a party to a lawsuit in one of its own courts, thus protecting its entities, such as schools, from liability in Tort. However, modern Australian law ensures that the Crown, the States, and the internal Territories are subject to the same liability in tort as any other legal person. Therefore, not only are teachers and school authorities personally liable for their negligence, but a school authority, state or private, may also be liable by way of vicarious
The case of Kamloops v. Nielson was a landmark decision for tort law, since it established the duty of care principle in Canadian private law, which prior to this case was used in the Anns v. Merton case and expanded the scope of duty first identified in Donoghue v. Stevenson. In the historic case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, duty of care was established to include anyone that could be foreseeably harmed by someone’s actions, creating the neighbour principle. The Anns v. Merton case expanded the scope of the neighbour principle to including public bodies, such as the municipality. The case involved a faulty building foundation, which resulting in requiring repairs for the house, and whether the municipality should have to pay for the repairs, since it was the job of the municipality to inspect and ensure the building was properly constructed. Whether public tax allocations should be subject to tort litigations was placed in question in the case but the municipality was held liable for damages nevertheless.
(5 points) Based on the facts of the case you have selected, is it possible the employer can also be held criminally liable? Explain your answer.
No greater obligation is placed on school officials than to protect the children in their charge from foreseeable dangers, whether those dangers arise from the careless acts or intentional transgressions of others. Although the overarching mission of a board of education is to educate, its first imperative must be to do no harm to the children in its care. A board of education must take reasonable measures to assure that the teachers and administrators who stand as surrogate parents during the day are educating, not endangering, and protecting, not exploiting, vulnerable children (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003).
It has been said for years that any case of educational malpractice was doomed from the start. Because of this, it was a huge surprise when the Iowa Supreme Court denied the defendant, Cedar Rapids Community School District’s motion for summary judgement. This was a case where a student sued for negligent misrepresentation by a school guidance counselor. One reason why the court may have denied the motion was because it was trying to protect a category of people who were considered especially vulnerable, the student-athlete.
Introduction This report aims to provide a better understanding of the Western Australian Department of Education (WA DoE) Duty of Care for Students Policy by discussing its rationale, the issues covered, its importance and who is subject to its requirements. It will also discuss the implications and applications of the policy in relation to three scenarios. Discussion 1. What is the difference between The Policy Rationale for writing the policy.
The main purpose of this Essay is to advise the parties as to any potential liability in tort and under the protection from Harassment Act 1997, also to find out the particulars of the case and list the points that are necessary in order for someone be found guilty.
When working practitioners must not only protect the children they work with when in the school setting and off site, but also themselves. Whether in school or off-site the school safeguarding policy should be referred to, to give guidance and adhered to at all times.
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
LaMorte, Michael. School Law: Cases and Concepts. 4th ed. London: Allyn and Bacon, 1993. Lane, Kenneth, Mary Jane Connelly, Julie Mead, Mark Gooden, and Suzanne Eckes, eds.
Irrefutable evidence that the employee poses a danger to others is information that the employer must act on immediately in order to protect others. However, if an employer has only a reasonable suspicion, the immediate supervisor should speak to the employee and determine if corrective or preventative action is necessary based on the foresee ability of harm. Both irrefutable evidence and reasonable suspicion are reasonable foreseeability of harm. Negligence law rests on the premise that members of society normally should behave in ways that avoid the creation of unreasonable risks of harm to others (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2013). Failure by an employer to take corrective or preventative action when an employee poses a danger to others may create a breach of duty and could result in a
The hospital under vicarious liability is based on Respondeat Superior (let the master answer) for the negligence actions of its contractors/employees. This is the responsibility of physicians for negligent actions of hospital employees ranging from nurses to x-ray techs. Through Corporate Liability the hospital itself is liable for the negligent actions of its workers.
Also, the tort victim is usually sufficiently compensated through insurance rather than if they claimed against the employee as the master has the ‘deepest pocket’[2]. However, recent developments in the law on vicarious liability not only makes the employer liable for acts that are ‘directly’ connected with what they are employed to do, but it is now established that an employer may be liable for the unauthorised acts of an employee, where those acts are ‘closely connected’ with the nature of the wrongdoer’s employment. The principle of vicarious liability can also burden the operation of a business by placing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on an employer. More money needs to be spent on training, employee’s characteristics need to be assessed and higher costs will be passed on to the consumer.
During the nineteenth and early twentieth century if a worker was a victim of workplace accident there was no compensation or requirement of the employer to support rehabilitation. Employers were not responsible for injured workers or accidents that happened in the workplace. The main legal doctrine of Assumption of Risk governed workplace hazards, which required workers to assume and accept all the risks affiliated with their occupation (Share, 2012). In the 1900 's many diseases and injuries resulted due to unsafe or hazardous working condition. "The Royal Commission on the Relations of Labour and Capital reported in 1889 that many workers were being hurt on the job and condemned the state of working conditions in several industries" (CPHA, 2012). However, the federal government at the time did not act on the results of the commission report. In 1914, the province of Ontario introduced legislation where, "workers would be eligible for guaranteed no-fault benefits from a system that was wholly funded by employers. In exchange, employers were freed from legal liability" (CPHA, 2012). This was the first time the idea came up that injured employees should be compensated no matter who was at fault for the accident. This was the sign of the beginnings of change, but perspectives on health and safety still held employees responsible and accountable for all injuries and
At first, the data of the tort claims declined in the recent years. Then, some victims do not know they could receive the compensation. Finally, the ‘compensation culture’ myth was created by the mass media and public organizations. Whilst there are a few advantage with ‘compensation culture’. The lawsuit will be more ‘defendant-friendly’ and protect the commercial companies, which is good for the business and economy. At the same time, the myth caused many problems for the society. Such as the excessive risk aversion, which result a cloud on voluntary and socially useful activities, teachers will feel more risk and pressures with children activities (Tingle, 2011). Or the government waste the tax for changing the tort law polices. Whether the ‘compensation culture’ exists, which may be not important. However, It is important that the negative involvements are appeared by the
Neglecting contracts and agreements can cause serious injury to someone’s property, reputation or livelihood. In a business format vicarious liability happens all the time where an employee defaces a company via tampering with their products or establishing misconduct under the company name and brand outside of the company’s presence (company property).