· Vicarious liability is where one person is held liable for the torts of another, even though that person did not commit the act itself. It is therefore a form of strict liability (in that the defendant is not at fault). The most common form of vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment Vicarious Liability Essay - Words | Cram. Show More. Check Writing Quality. This essay aims to briefly outline the reasoning as to why employers are responsible for their employees’ actions, as well as exploring numerous ideas that are either in favour or against vicarious liability. Firstly vicarious liability is responsibility “for the tort of others and it arises because · Vicarious liability is a legal concept which refers to one party being held liable for the injury or damage sustained by another party, in spite of the fact that they had no active involvement in the incident. The intent behind vicarious liability is to hold the proper party accountable when harm is blogger.comted Reading Time: 10 mins
Vicarious Liability Essay - Words | Bartleby
A T HEO RY O F V ICARIOUS L IABILITY 1 A THEORY OF VICARIOU S LIABILITY J. The main premise of the article is that the common law should continue to impose vicarious liability because it can co-exist with the current tort law regime that imposes liability for fault. The author lays out the central features of the doctrine of vicarious liability and examines why the leading rationales such as control, vicarious liability essay, compensation, deterrence, loss-spreading, enterprise liability and mixed policy fail to explain or account for its doctrinal rules.
The author offers an indemnity theory for vicarious liability and examines why the current rules of vicarious liability are limited in application to employer-employee relationships and do not extend further.
It is proposed that the solution to the puzzle of vicarious liability rests within the contractual relationship between employer-employee and not the relationship between the employer and the tort victim. The proposed indemnity theory implies a contract term that indemnifies the employee for harms suffered in the course of his or her employment. Vicarious liability then follows from an application of the contractual concepts of subrogation and indemnity to the particular relationship between employee, employer and tort victim.
Order custom essay Vicarious Liability with free plagiarism report. Finally, the article discusses and attempts to resolve the possible criticisms that may follow the indemnity theory, including concerns that it is in vicarious liability essay with leading decisions, including Lister v. Romford, Bazley v, vicarious liability essay.
Curry and Morgans v. TABLE I. OF C ONTENTS T HE D OCTR INE OF V ICARIOUS L IABILITY. D ETERRENCE. An earlier version of this article was presented to the Tort Law section of the SLS Conference in Sheffield. The author would like to thank the participants in that section for their helpful questions and suggestions, vicarious liability essay.
The author would also like to thank Vaughan Black, vicarious liability essay, Rande Kostal, John Murphy, Stephen Pitel, Eoin Quill, Lionel Smith and Robert Stevens for their comments on earlier drafts of this article.
The usual disclaimer applies. E NTERPRISE L IABILITY. A N E XPLANA TION OF V ICARIOUS L IABILITY. P OSSIBLE O BJECTIONS TO THE T HEORY. R OMFORD. V ICARIOUS L IABILITY AS A R ULE OF L AW. Vicarious liability occupies a mysterious place in the common law. Our system of wrongs is premised upon fault as justifying why the apparatus of the state is to be marshalled against the assets of one person for the benefit of another.
Interestingly, this consensus has emerged in spite of the absence of any comprehensive theory of vicarious liability — a theory that actually explains the central features and limits of the doctrine. The article will be divided into four 1 2 3 4 5 See e. The Salisbury Gold Mining Co. at See e. Baty, Vicarious Liability: A Short History of the Liability of Employees, Principals, Partners, Associations and Trade-Union Members, Oxford: Clarendon Vicarious liability essay, See Gary T, vicarious liability essay.
Vicarious liability essay idea of repealing vicarious liability would seem to us preposterous, inconceivable. For a similar view, see W. Rogers, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, 16th ed. Klar, Tort Law, 3rd ed.
LeporeA. See also the comments of the majority in Hollis v. Vabu Pty. Part I will lay out the central features of vicarious liability that need vicarious liability essay be explained. Next, Part II will show why the leading rationales fail to adequately account for these rules. Part III will then offer a theory of vicarious liab ility and demo nstrate that it can explain these doctrinal limitations. The ultimate conclusion of this article will be that the common law was right to maintain vicarious liability in the face of its criticism since the doctrine can sit comfortably beside a regime that imp oses liab ility for fault.
T HE D O C T R I N E OF V ICARIOUS L IABILITY Vicarious liability is a liability that is imposed on one person B for the torts of another A in situations where B has not committed any legal wrong. The central features of the doctrine of vicarious liability are four-fold. Hesley Hall, [] 1 A. Hesley Hall]. Nor does my argument depend on proof of a major conspiracy among hundreds of judges over hundreds of years to secretly apply the proposed theory while publicly articulating different justifications.
Instead the argument will be that although the judges have not agreed on their reasons for imposing vicarious liability they were mostly correct in doing what they have done on vicarious liability essay basis of a rationale that never occurred to them, i. the one presented in Part III of this article, vicarious liability essay.
As was noted by the Privy Council in Bernard v. The Attorney General vicarious liability essay Jamaica, [] UKPC 47 at para. It is a liability for a tort committed by an employee not based on any fault of the employer. There may, of course, be cases of vicarious liability where employers were at fault.
But it is not a requirement. This consideration underlines the need to keep the doctrine within clear limits. For judicial elaboration of the history vicarious liability essay vicarious liability: see British Columbia Ferry Corp. Invicta Security Service Corp. at para. Morgan, [] 1 Q. Jones, [] A. Shatwell, [] A. Advocate General for Scotland and Pearce v. Mayfield Secondary Vicarious liability essay Governing Body, [] 1 All E.
While there has been controversy and confusion as to whether the law accepts a general regime of vicarious liability of principals for the torts of their agents see P. Atiyah, Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts London: Butterworths, vicarious liability essay, at c. Reynolds et al. Fridman, The Law of Torts in Canada, 2d ed, vicarious liability essay. Toronto: Carswell, at [Fridman, Torts in Canada]: In the modern law of vicarious liability there appears to be no reason to differentiate an agent 4 A LBERTA L A W R EVIEW employment with B.
A and B become joint tortfeasors both amenable to suit by the tort victim. These are the central vicarious liability essay for which any theory o f vicarious liability will have to be ab le to account. A comprehensive theo ry of vicarious liab ility will also have to explain why the private law doctrine is limited in its application solely to the employer-employee relationship. They are in effect interchangeable.
Courts regularly speak of an act vicarious liability essay or outside the course of employment, or the scope of authority, of an employee, whether such employee is an agent in the restricted sense, or a servant as that term was meant in earlier centuries.
See also, Thomas Atkins Street, The Foundations of Legal Liability: A Presentation Of The Theory and Development of the Common Law, vol. Dugdale ed. Helens Ltd. The only limitation on the statement given by Fridman is that in order for a principal to be liable for the torts of a true agent it must be demonstrated that the agent was not in fact an independent contractor; see infra, note 14 and Atiyah, vicarious liability essay, earlier in this note at For ease of reference, this article will henceforth use language which refers to the employee-employer relationship, wherever possible, which should be taken to include the principal-agent relationship as well.
Markesinis et al. Harlow: Longman, at ; Francis A, vicarious liability essay. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, at, ; Klar, Tort Law, upra note 4 at; Fridman, Torts in Canada, supra note 10 at ; M. Jones, Textbook on Torts, 8th vicarious liability essay. Oxford: Oxford University Press, at ff. Vicarious liability is also statutorily imposed in various Commonwealth countries, for example, on partners for the torts of their partners, on the heads of police forces for the torts of their officers, and on the Vicarious liability essay for the torts of its servants, vicarious liability essay.
These statutory manifestations of vicarious liability are not discussed in this article though it is likely that these manifestations of vicarious liability are also explicable on the theory herein proposed.
It is also sometimes stated, on the authority of Brooke v. Bool, [] 2 K. This blanket statement is somewhat misleading. In some cases, true vicarious liability is imposed, not due to the parties status as joint venturers but rather because the parties, much like those participating in a partnership, can be viewed as mutual agents, see Co-operative Retail Services Ltd, vicarious liability essay. Taff-Ely Borough Council, [] N. Some of the misunderstanding surrounding this area of the law has been engendered by Brooke v.
Bool itself since the two judges who decided the case offered at least four different justifications for liability on its facts including: agency, control, joint enterprise and breach of non-delegable duty. As Allan Beever notes: In reco m m end ing a [ ration ale], th e task is no t m erely to show that the favoured [rationale] generates the desired outcome in the particular situation unde r discussion; it is also to show that the [rationale] does not generate inappropriate outcomes in other situations.
But the latter seldom receives attention. T HE F A I L U R E OF P R O P O SE D R A T I O N A L ES TO E XPLAIN THE D O C T R IN E This part of the article will examine the leading rationales put forth to justify vicarious liability and argue that none of them are true explanations of the doctrine since they cannot explain the central features of the doctrine nor its doctrinal limits.
Gillette U. atvicarious liability essay, Mustill L. In any event, if the foregoing analysis is correct, the existence of liability for joint venturers is perfectly consistent with the theory of vicarious liability that will be proposed in Part III of this article.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY-WITH NOTES-FULL EXPLAINED-
, time: 11:26Vicarious Liability Essay - Words | Cram
· Vicarious liability is where one person is held liable for the torts of another, even though that person did not commit the act itself. It is therefore a form of strict liability (in that the defendant is not at fault). The most common form of vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment · If the reason for vicarious liability is that the employer should be held liable because she committed some fault (such as failing to supervise, foster a proper environment or select appropriately) then liability is not vicario us but ra ther a p articular application o f the fault regime. 1 Mo reover, if this was the reason for the rule, then one would expect that the Estimated Reading Time: 11 mins Vicarious Liability Essay. Words1 Page. Vicarious Liability imposes criminal liability on one party for the criminal acts of another party. I believe it should and shouldn't exist in some cases. It shouldn't exist in a case if your friend needed to borrow your car for the day and found out it was wrecked, with vicarious liability the owner of that car and driver would be both
No comments:
Post a Comment