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.
Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. [ 1 ]
Vicarious liability refers to the idea of an employer being liable for torts committed by their employees, generally for policy reasons, and to ensure that victims have a means of recovery. [42] The word "vicarious" derives from the Latin for 'change' or 'alternation' [43] and the old Latin for the doctrine is respondeat superior. To establish ...
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."
Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law, 6th ed (2007) describe this as the "enterprise risk" approach. 75. In Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] UKHL 48; [2003] 2 AC 366 the relevant issue was whether dishonest conduct by a solicitor could involve the firm in liability under section 10 of the Partnership Act 1890 as having been carried on “ in ...
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).
May LJ noted that Prof Atiyah Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (1967) 156 in a chapter called ‘The Borrowed Servant’ suggested that both the general and temporary employer could be considered vicariously liable. After reviewing the history and noting that different jurisdictions diverged (Pennsylvania though in particular allows dual ...
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 ...