Sentences with phrase «gross breach of duty»

Similarly a corporate can be guilty of corporate manslaughter if the management or organisation of its activities causes a person's death, and amounts to a gross breach of a duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.

To be guilty of the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter, a company had to be in gross breach of a duty of care owed to the victim.

Further, it is for the court to decide if there has been a gross breach of duty on its objective assessment of the facts and technical and professional advice.

Not exact matches

Two additional stockholder derivative lawsuits, Pifko v. Babbio, et al., filed on September 19, 2006, and Gross v. Babbio, et al., filed on November 21, 2006, were filed in Chancery Court, County of New Castle, Delaware; both seek to recover damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and to obtain an order instructing the defendants to refrain from further breaches of fiduciary duty and to implement corrective measures that will prevent future occurrences of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Rams dismissed Mr Rush for gross misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty in May 2017.

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 duty of care owed in negligence is breached if the death is caused by the way in which activities are managed and organised or amount to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care (s 1 (1)-RRB-.

On December 20, 2011, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd. v. J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. that the New York General Business Law article 23 - A, sections 352 - 353, also known as the «Martin Act,» does not preempt common law securities claims for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence.

The law creates a tort by which an organization can be held liable for a death «if the way in which its activities are managed or organized» is a «gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organization to the deceased.»

The Appellate Division reinstated two tort claim for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence and a contract claim, stating,

The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the claim in its entirety under CPLR 3211, holding that breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence fell,

... plaintiff's common - law breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence claims must be dismissed because they are preempted by the Martin Act.

Under the CMCHA, a corporate offence is committed if the way an organisation manages or organises its activities (i) causes a death; and (ii) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the company to the deceased.

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 Instead of requiring a grossly negligent «act or omission» on the part of the «controlling mind» of a company (as previously), the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 — enacted on 24 July 2007 — seeks to create liability for a company, government departments or police forces if (and only if)(cl 1 (3)-RRB- «the way in which its activities are managed or organised by its senior management is a substantial element» in the «gross breach of a relevant duty of care» — punishable by a fine.

In a consultation published this week, «Manslaughter Guideline Consultation», the council proposes tougher penalties for gross negligence manslaughter, where the offender is in breach of a duty of care towards the victim, which causes the death of the victim and amounts to a criminal act or omission.

This in turn may mean that in lower value claims some litigants will find practitioners unwilling to invest the required time and money to establish liability, unless the breach of duty is patently gross.

(14) Imposing, and authorising a Protector to inflict summary punishment by way of imprisonment, not exceeding fourteen days, upon aboriginals or half - castes, living upon a reserve or within the District under his charge, who, in the judgment of the Protector, are guilty of any crime, serious misconduct, neglect of duty, gross insubordination, or wilful breach of the Regulations;