Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability, or duty to control" the activities of a violator.
It is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee in terms of vicarious liability." [ 3 ] According to this maxim, if in the nature of things, the master is obliged to perform the duties by employing servants, he is responsible for their act in the same way that he is responsible for his own acts.
Respondeat superior (Latin: "let the master answer"; plural: respondeant superiores) is a doctrine that a party is responsible for (and has vicarious liability for) acts of his agents. [ 1 ] : 794 For example, in the United States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their ...
The concept of vicarious liability was developed in the Second Circuit as an extension of the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior (the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate). Pursuant to this doctrine, courts recognized that employers should be liable for the infringing acts of their employees under ...
Vicarious liability – A form of strict secondary liability arising from respondeat superior. The responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinates, under which, they are responsible for negligent acts committed by their employees during the course of their employment. [2]
While negligence in employment may overlap with negligent entrustment and vicarious liability, the concepts are distinct grounds of liability. The doctrine that an employer is liable for torts committed by employees within the scope of their employment is called respondeat superior.
The general rule in criminal law is that there is no vicarious liability. This reflects the general principle that crime is composed of both an actus reus (the Latin tag for "guilty act") and a mens rea (the Latin tag for "guilty mind") and that a person should only be convicted if they are directly responsible for causing both elements to occur at the same time (see concurrence).
The Court found that according to precedent, government officials could not be held liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates because of respondeat superior and also because vicarious liability was inapplicable to Bivens and Section 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each government-official defendant, through the ...