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; ... common federal tort claim is the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 remedy for violation of one's civil rights under color of federal or state law, ...
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).
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 ...
As another example, in England common law liability of a landowner to guests or trespassers was replaced by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957; a similar situation occurred in the U.S. State of California in which a judicial common law rule established in Rowland v. Christian was amended through a 1985 statute. [171]
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 ...
In the US, this is primarily a state-level rule with considerable variation in its application. [9] For example, in Arizona, the family purpose doctrine is applied very broadly and holds parents liable even for the negligence of a child driving a motor vehicle in defiance of driving restrictions placed upon him. [10]
Duty of care – Liability arises when a tortfeasor fails to observe a duty of care toward the claimant. With regard to liability for landowners, the duty to visitors in tort law is dependent on how the claimant entered the land: Trespasser – A person who is trespassing on a property without the permission on the owner. Conversely, the status ...