The English Law on 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 the best compromise between the needs of tort victims and the freedom of businesses as the employer usually has insurance to cover the tort of the employee, making it more financially viable to the employer than directly compensating the claimant. 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. Vicarious liability is incident only to a relationship of controlled employment, tr... ... middle of paper ... ...n any case the insurance premium that covers the claim is generally cheaper than if the employer was to directly compensate the tort victim. Therefore, the principle of vicarious liability is the best compromise which could have been reached between the needs of tort victims for compensation and the freedom of businesses to operate without excessive burdens. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] P418. Textbook on Torts 8th edition. Michael A.Jones [2] P419. Textbook on Torts 8th edition. Michael A.Jones [3] The Law of Torts. 9th edition. Chapter 19. p413. John G.Fleming [4] P419. Textbook on Torts 8th edition. Michael A.Jones [5] Vicarious Liability for Employers. Andrew Scott-Howman. 14th June 2001. http://www.bellgully.com/publications/emp_2001_06_14_liabilty.html
(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.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
1926. http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/adaccess_BH0301/ (accessed April 10, 2011).
One of the main differences between criminal cases and civil cases is that they are held in different courts, this is because there is a significant distinction between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. Crimes are considered to be a type of wrongdoing, however civil wrongs tend to have only an impact on the parties involved in the case. For example: a breach of contract. Where criminal wrongs tend to have. impact on society itself.
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).
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
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.
The Common Law, also known as Anglo-American Law, surfaced in England during the Middle Ages in the 14th century and was spread all over the world with the British colonies. Although England had numerous connections to the rest of Europe in those times, one thing that was not similar was the use of judicial decisions as the foundation of common law.
Strict Liability can be defined as a legal principle that refers to entire legal of responsibility for an injury that can be enforced on the “defendant” without any proof of negligence. Generally, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was doing something wrong that cause the plaintiff to be injured or negligence towards the plaintiff (Cheeseman 2010). However, for strict liability, there is no required for the plaintiff to prove fault or negligence. Besides, strict liability also called absolute liability. There are some issues which applied to the strict liability, such as the damages of a defective product or animals and involved in some dangerous activities. A person might be responsible for strictly liable in civil
Introduction: Traditionally speaking, privacy has not been directly protected in English Law but, nonetheless, is a rapidly growing area of English Law due to pressing issues such as the role of the internet in privacy, unlawful interference on behalf of governments, and others that will be analysed further below. Privacy law considers in what instances does an individual have a legal right to informational privacy. Laws of this nature are typically considered as part of criminal law or the law of tort, but that has not been the case with privacy and has only enjoyed limited protection through the doctrine of breach of confidence and champloo of related legislation on topics like data protection and harassment. The Human Rights Act (the "Act")
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