Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Qui facit per alium facit per se (anglicised Late Latin), [1] which means "He who acts through another does the act himself", is a fundamental legal maxim of the law of agency. [2] It is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee in terms of vicarious liability."
Vicarious liability for theft has also been found due to poor selections of employees by an employer, as in Nahhas v Pier House Management. [74] Here, the management company of a luxury block of flats employed a porter, who was an 'ex-professional thief', to manage their building.
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.
Vicarious liability, course of employment, close connection Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 is an English tort law case, creating a new precedent for finding where an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of their employees.
Vicarious liability, course of employment, close connection Mattis v Pollock [2003] 1 WLR 2158 is an English tort law case, establishing an employer's vicarious liability for assault , even where it may be intentional or pre-meditated.
This page was last edited on 6 December 2014, at 07:10 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 is an English tort law case, on the issue of where an employee is acting within the course of their employment. Vicarious liability was tenuously found under John William Salmond's test for course of employment, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was ...
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).