Sentences with phrase «as vicarious liability»

This is referred to as vicarious liability.

This is known as vicarious liability, or as the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Not exact matches

This shall not apply to the liability for damages arising from the injury to life or limb as well as for any other damage based on a breach of duty thorough wilful intent or gross negligence on the part of the Hotel, a legal representative or a vicarious agent of the Hotel.

The liability is a vicarious one in that it is justified by policy considerations as opposed to any failing on the defendant's part.

The Court of Appeal has recently had cause to revisit the question of vicarious liability in relation to injuries caused to employees as a result of violence towards them by another employee, in the conjoined appeals in Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd; Wallbank v Wallbank Fox Designs Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 25.

Most often, hospitals and professional corporations establish organizational walls to avoid vicarious liability, and attempt to treat others providing medical services as independent contractors for whom there is no vicarious liability.

The work around mentioned of course is the practice of describing this work on dockets not as «legal research» but as «drafting factum» or «analyzing question of vicarious liability,» something which seems unfortunate and should be unecessary.

This seems implausible — partnership surely is as irrelevant to the coverage of the Code as the idea of «independent contractor», flowing from vicarious liability law, was to the health and safety committee case discussed above.

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.

One English legal academic has described the analysis and result in JGE as «an attempt to create a new overarching category of vicarious liability».

As David states the law, In Canada one can have direct liability for the actions of a vicar, while in England liability for a vicar may be only vicarious.

At most, if the decision is affirmed, it'll be what amounts to England applying a version of the enterprise liability due to material increase in risk approach declared by the SCC in Bazley and Jacoby as the justification for vicarious liability.

None of the individual police officers was named as the defendant, and the potential liability of the chief constable was vicarious only.

The vicar's personal liability for his misdeeds clearly can not be described as vicarious.

The decision in the Morrisons case is consistent with the vicarious liability doctrine as interpreted and applied by Canadian courts.

The claim was brought against the Claimant's employer (even though it was an individual that was alleged to have been the harasser) on the basis that they were responsible for her actions (known as «vicarious liability»).

Under one type of vicarious liability, known as respondeat superior, an employer may be held liable for the negligent acts of its employee if the employee's actions fall within the course and scope of the employee's employment.

Allstate denies Araujo third - party coverage and brings two motions for summary judgment: one to dismiss Fernandes» claim as against Almeida (based on a theory of vicarious liability), the other to dismiss Araujo's claim on the ground she was not entitled to coverage (as she drove the ATV without a proper licence).

A legal theory known as «vicarious liability» is what typically makes employers responsible for accidents their employees cause.

Langstaff is one of only a very few reported Canadian decisions in which a day school (as opposed to a residential school at which students sleep over, where there is much precedent for vicarious liability) has been held indirectly or vicariously responsible for the harms flowing from the sexual misconduct of a staff member against a student.

The judge referred to the governing legal test for determining if an employer is vicariously liable for employee sexual misconduct, and concluded that because the alleged abuse was said to have occurred while the teacher was simply carrying out his ordinary duties as a teacher, without taking advantage of any specialized opportunities afforded to him by virtue of his employment, no vicarious liability would have attached to the school board even if the alleged sexual misconduct had been proven.

However, these arguments largely failed and in the JGE case the Church went a stage further, arguing that vicarious liability can not arise in the first place as priests are not employees of the church, they are merely office holders and therefore (it argued) the essential precondition of vicarious liability is not satisfied.

Two of the major concerns with the letters that I review in the article are that they (1) advance claims rooted in parental vicarious liability and (2) demand damages for a pro-rated portion of overall security costs incurred by a retailer, as discussed above.

As discussed in Canadian Dredge, at length, the idea of vicarious criminal liability is deeply troubling and likely unknown to Canadian law.

Overall the «direction of travel» in cases involving vicarious liability in the past decade has been in favour of claimants — cases such as Lister, Maga, and JGE have developed vicarious liability remedies for claimants in circumstances where they would previously have been without a remedy.

... There is an organization respondent (the Regional Municipality of Halton) in the proceeding that is alleged to be liable for the same alleged conduct as them, no issue has been raised to the organization respondent's deemed or vicarious liability for their alleged conduct, there is no issue as to the ability of the organization respondent to respond to or remedy any infringements of the Code, and no real prejudice would be caused to the applicant or any other party as a result of removing them as respondents to the Application.

The hospital was named as a party defendant under the theory of vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of Mizyed's treating physicians.

Coupled with principles of vicarious liability of the company for the acts, actions and state of mind of management, agents and intermediaries around the world, it is easy to see why multi-national companies, with US links, are coming to regard corruption as one of their biggest corporate risks.

It had misunderstood the House of Lords authority on which it purported to be based, and (short of specific legislative coverage, as in discrimination law) there can be no vicarious liability for acts of employees which are themselves not unlawful in the necessary manner.

A similar exemption applies for those persons liable under the extended liability (s. 52) and vicarious liability (s. 53) provisions in CASL, in cases where the corporation, employee or agent, as the case may be, who committed the contravention has entered into an undertaking or been served with a notice of violation.

(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.

As the named insured, your firm is covered for its vicarious liability for accidents resulting from the use of any covered auto.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty was the most commonly raised issue, while Agency: Other and Vicarious Liability issues were considered in many cases as well.

These damages are assessed against all defendants — the 100 per cent guilty Realtor as well as the 100 per cent personally blameless seller (remember his vicarious liability?).

A designated brokerage law in effect since Jan. 1, 2003, that abolishes vicarious liability in most situations hasn't spurred legal challenges as feared.

(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

Having a managing broker's license also open you up to vicarious liability if you run a brokerage as you'll be susceptible to the consequences of your `' employees» (other representatives) actions if they are against the law.

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