Sentences with phrase «employee vicarious liability»

Not exact matches

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.

The clearest and most obvious example of this judicial thinking has been the growth in the scope of vicarious liability of employers for the torts of their employees.

In this context, a single employee may have made a mistake in road construction, but his or her employer can be held responsible under the doctrine of «vicarious liability.»

Under what is called «vicarious liability» or «respondeat superior,» if the driver is the employee of a business and the accident takes place while the trucker is on his or her job, the business itself could be held responsible.

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.

Vicarious liability is the legal means by which we can pursue action against a vehicle owner or an employer for the negligent and injurious actions of those driving their vehicle or employees acting on behalf of the company.

Hotels are also liable for the actions of their employees under the doctrine of «vicarious liability» in Florida.

If the driver is an employee of a trucking company, the trucking company will also be liable, based on a doctrine called vicarious liability.

Also, Massachusetts recognizes a legal doctrine called vicarious liability, which holds an employer liable for careless acts that an employee commits during the course and scope of employment.

In some cases, however, school districts have been relieved of vicarious liability when an employee's negligent actions departed significantly from normal school duties.

Nevertheless, the court imposed vicarious liability on Morrisons because there was a sufficient connection between the rogue employee's assigned work and his wrongful conduct to make it fair for Morrisons to be liable to the individuals affected by the privacy breach.

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.

Vicarious or indirect liability simply means that the driver was an employee of the trucking corporation and on the job when they caused the crash.

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 liability of defendant medical group was based upon its vicarious liability for the negligence and gross negligence of its employees.

The outcome of a vicarious liability claim against an employer of a dog owner in a recent Maine dog bite injury lawsuit hinged on whether the employee was acting in the course and scope of employment at the time the dog attacked.

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.

Vicarious liability, per Maine Revised Statutes 29 - A-1109, holds that employers can be responsible for the acts of their employees if they approved or had knowledge of the employee's actions and either approved or retained benefits, proceeds, profits, or advantages from the acts.

«Respondeat superior» is a vicarious liability theory that makes an employer liable for certain torts of their employees.

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.

When suing an employer for the conduct of their employee, the Perrysburg nursing home abuse lawyer has to use the theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.

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

When the employee of a New Orleans business causes an injury, Louisiana State Law places vicarious liability on the employer if the employee was in exercise of the functions in which he or she is employed.

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.

One of the most common scenarios in which vicarious liability comes up involves an employee who is driving on behalf of an employer and gets into an accident or creates a hazard.

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.

However, the claimant argued that a priest is akin to an employee in the sense of being controlled by the church and therefore vicarious liability should arise; this argument was accepted by the judge at first instance in JGE and was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The primary types of vicarious liability in Louisiana are an employer's vicarious liability for damages caused by an employee in the course and scope of employment, and a parent's liability for the acts of an unemancipated minor child.

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.

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.

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.