Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Insurance bad faith (American law) Fraud; Tortious interference; Defences; Assumption of risk; Consent; Necessity; Statute of limitations; Self-defense. Defense of others; Defence of property; Shopkeeper's privilege; Neutral reportage; Liability; Intentional torts; Last clear chance; Eggshell skull; Vicarious liability; Respondeat superior ...
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 ...
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 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 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 ...
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 ...
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 ...