Ad
related to: vicarious liability of employer
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Employers may also be liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium facit per se (one who acts through another acts in one's own interests). That is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability, in which one person is held liable in criminal law or tort for the acts or omissions of ...
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 separate theory of liability, which provides that an employer is liable for the torts of an employee under an agency theory, even if the employer did nothing wrong. The principle is that the acts of an agent of the company are assumed, by law, to be the acts of the company itself, provided the tortfeasor was acting ...
The action against the employer is based on the theory of vicarious liability in which a party can be held liable for the acts of a different party. The employer–employee relationship is the most common area respondeat superior is applied, but the doctrine is also used in the agency relationship. Then, the principal becomes liable for the ...
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.
Frolic and detour in the law of torts occur when an employee (or agent) makes a physical departure from the service of his employer (or principal).A detour occurs when an employee or agent makes a minor departure from his employer's charge whereas a frolic is a major departure when the employee is acting on his own and for his own benefit, rather than a minor sidetrack in the course of obeying ...
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. [4]
The contemporary rationale of employers' vicarious liability is as applicable to this new wrong as it is to common law torts. 28. Take a case where an employee, in the course of his employment, harasses a non-employee, such as a customer of the employer. In such a case the employer would be liable if his employee had assaulted the customer.