Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
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."
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 ...
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.
Conversion, assault and battery may attract criminal liability as well as civil liability, but this does not exclude vicarious liability. 27. I turn to the practical effect of the legislation. Vicarious liability for an employee's harassment of another person, whether a fellow employee or not, will to some extent increase employers' burdens.
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.
A group action of 170 claimants had successfully claimed that between 1958 and 1992 they were sexually abused by Brother James Carragher, and various others, at the St William's school. The Catholic Child Welfare Society (CCWS, a charitable company, referred to as the ‘Middlesbrough defendants’) supplied the teachers and managed the school ...