Sentences with phrase «vicarious liability does»

Not exact matches

Whatever the distinction's usefulness, say in regards to issues of vicarious liability, it is intellectually and legally useless here because no one cares, and the Code does not care, whether you refused to employ a person as an employee or as an independent contractor if the reason you did so was because of sex, race, religion or age.

The coverage does this by treating a «dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious» act of either the insured or of others for whose actions the insured might be liable (for example, under the doctrine of vicarious liability) as an «error, omission or negligent act» as described in the policy.

Will the ruling open the door for others to claim vicarious liability against organizations whose independent contractors do wrong?

In vicarious liability cases, if an individual was employed by an enterprise and the conduct in question was related to work the employee was instructed to do, the employer will generally be liable for the actions of its employee.

Although the vicarious liability provision does not apply to harassment in employment, there is long - established case law of the Tribunal which supports that liability for harassment by an employee can be imposed on an organization respondent where the harassing employee forms part of the «directing mind» of the organization respondent, on the basis of the «organic theory of corporate liability.»

The trial judge didn't suggest that, somehow, the agreement contained a clause that allowed the plaintiff to continue against the remaining defendant (s) for more than their own shares — their own shares would include a share based on vicarious liability, but that wasn't an issue in the case.

A lot of other states simply call it vicarious liability, but the important thing is if that's what you're trying to show, that a company or employer should be responsible for the negligence of their employees, you need to be able to show that the person who was negligent, the employee, was acting for the most part in furtherance of their employer's interests, doing the job they were hired to do.

In a judgment that sheds light on the current approach to both vicarious liability and non-delegable duties of care, Cockerill J held that: (1) the MOJ had not breached its limited direct duty of care, (2) did not owe a non-delegable duty of care and (3) was not vicariously liable.

Vicarious liability only attaches, however, when the employer might have prevented the act that caused the damage and did not do so.

A copyright - owning plaintiff must still establish the elements of infringement against the service provider — whether for direct infringement or under a theory of secondary liability (like vicarious infringement)-- even if the defendant does not find itself within the DMCA safe harbor.

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.

However, the high court did state that under legal principles of vicarious liability, the corporation itself could be held liable for an employee or agent's actions.

The Court determined that the Act did not vary the traditional rules of vicarious liability (or, when an owner can be liable for the actions of its employees) and so directed the appellate court to consider the allegations against the Broker under the traditional principles of vicarious liability.

241 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Himark Realty — failure to appear at hearing; cease - and - desist; duty to supervise sales associates; vicarious liability; ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper service; salesperson inadvertently calls home listed on cease - and - desist list which demonstrates incompetency; broker is obligated to supervise real estate brokerage activities of its salespersons and is vicariously liable for their misconduct, limited only with regard to penalty in cases where the broker lacked actual knowledge of misconduct or did not retain any benefit derived from that misconduct; corporate broker, representative broker and salesperson each to pay $ 250 fine

(5) Subsection (3) does not absolve the real estate council, government, foundation, insurance corporation or compensation fund corporation, as applicable, from vicarious liability arising out of anything done or omitted by a protected individual for which it would be vicariously liable if that subsection were not in force.

287 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Uqdah Realty & Management Corp. — deposits; jurisdiction; fraudulent practices; failure to pay judgment; vicarious liability; notary public; disclosure of agency relationship; broker violated 19 NYCRR 175.1 when he deposited escrow funds into his operating account; broker committed conversion when his operating account fell below deposit amount; broker engaged in fraudulent practices when he illegally retained buyer's trust funds and attempted to qualify prospective buyer for mortgage by falsely stating their employment; broker failed to disclose his agency relationship to his client; failure to pay judgment; corporate real estate broker vicariously liable and charged with actual knowledge of violation of law because of representative broker's cognizant misconduct as corporate officer; broker is not required to deposit a refundable commission in an escrow account unless contractually demanded; corporate broker and representative broker's license revoked; restitution of deposit of $ 12,000 plus interest; notary public commission revoked based on misconduct as a real estate licensee

887 DOS 03 DOS v. Bravo - deposits; disclosure of agency relationships; failure to cooperate with DOS investigation; proper business practices; vicarious liability; broker failed to provide agency disclosure form; broker continued to do business under prior firm's name after association with that firm had been terminated; broker failed to deposit monies received by her into an escrow account; broker failed to respond to DOS letters; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency by failing to follow up on the availability of an apartment in a rental transaction; broker failed to give a cash refund of a deposit received in cash upon tenant's demand therefore; corporate broker bound by the knowledge acquired by its representative broker; corporate broker's license and representative broker's license suspended for six months

649 DOS 02 DOS v. Holzbach — disclosure of agency relationships; proper business practices; sanctions; unauthorized practice of law; vicarious liability; broker fails to timely provide agency disclosure form to buyer although disclosure form could have been faxed to and received from buyer; broker back dated agency disclosure form demonstrating incompetency; use of designated agent form without the use of required agency disclosure form pursuant to RPL § 443 (4); use of «removal of contingency» addendum to contract which did not contain an attorney approval clause and was not on a form jointly approved by the County Bar Association and REALTOR Association constituted the unauthorized practice of law; corporate broker liable for the acts of its representative broker; proper to impose a higher fine after hearing than that which was offered in settlement (joint fine of $ 2,000.00 offered); associate broker fined $ 2,000.00, representative broker fined $ 1,000.00, and corporate broker fined $ 2,000.00

79 DOS 99 Matter of DOS v. Pagano - disclosure of agency relationships; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; unauthorized practice of law; unearned commissions; vicarious liability; fraudulent practice; jurisdiction; ex parte hearing may proceed upon proof of proper service; DOS has jurisdiction after expiration of respondents» licenses as acts of misconduct occurred and the proceedings were commenced while the respondents were licensed; licensee fails to timely provide seller client with agency disclosure form prior to entering into listing agreement and fails to timely provide agency disclosure form to buyer upon first substantive contact; broker fails to make it clear for which party he is acting; broker violates 19 NYCRR 175.24 by using exclusive right to sell listing agreement without mandatory definitions of «exclusive right to sell» and «exclusive agency»; broker breaches fiduciary duties to seller clients by misleading them as to buyer's ability to financially consummate the transaction; broker breaches his fiduciary duty to seller by referring seller to the attorney who represented the buyers when he knew or should have known such attorney could not properly protect seller's interests; improper for broker to use listing agreements providing for broker to retain one half of any deposit if forfeited by buyer as such forfeiture clause could, by its terms, allow broker to retain part of the deposit when broker did not earn a commission; broker must conduct business under name as it appears on license; broker engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in preparing contracts for purchase and sale of real estate which did not contain a clause making it subject to the approval of the parties» attorneys and were not a form recommended by a joint bar / real estate board committee; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using sales contract which purported to change the terms of the listing agreement to include a higher commission; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using contracts of sale which were unclear, ambiguous, vague and incomplete; broker failed to amend purchase agreement to reflect amendment to increase deposit amount; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in back - dating purchase agreements; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in participating in scheme to have seller hold undisclosed second mortgage and to mislead first mortgagee about the purchaser's financial ability to purchase; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness by claiming unearned commission and filing affidavit of entitlement for unearned commission; DOS fails to establish by substantial evidence that respondent acted as undisclosed dual agent; corporate broker bound by the knowledge acquired by and is responsible for acts committed by its licensees within the actual or apparent scope of their authority; corporate and individual brokers» licenses revoked, no action taken on application for renewal until proof of payment of sum of $ 2,000.00 plus interests for deposits unlawfully retained

189 DOS 99 Matter of DOS v. Naftal - listing agreements; deposits; unauthorized practice of law; vicarious liability; amendment of pleading to conform to the proof; improperly altering listing agreement without the consent or knowledge of principal to show the potential commission split with buyer's broker to meet MLS requirements; preparing and submitting fraudulent MLS change notifications purporting to extend and alter listings; deposit of escrow funds into operating account; preparation of lease constitutes the unauthorized practice of law; pleadings may be amended to conform to the proof and encompass a charge not stated in the complaint where the issue has been fully litigated by the parties and is closely enough related to the stated charges that there is no surprise or prejudice to the respondent; continuing to offer properties for sale after preparation of forged listing extensions violates 19 NYCRR 175.10; DOS fails to establish violation of 19 NYCRR 175.12 for failure to provide copy of listing extension where extension was not authorized by principal; DOS fails to demonstrate demand for unearned commission where broker may have believed they were entitled to a commission; broker's licenses suspended for one year and thereafter until such time as restitution in the amounts of $ 5,000.00 and $ 2,055.40 is made

103 DOS 95 Matter of DOS v. Lana - fiduciary duty; vicarious liability; dual agency; breach of fiduciary duty where seller's agent advised buyer can purchase property for less than asking price; broker not liable without actual knowledge of misconduct or after notice retains proceeds therefrom; mutually dependent transaction did not arise creating improper double agency; amend pleadings to conform to proof; two month suspension results