Sentences with phrase «involving vicarious liability»

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.

The personal injury lawyers at Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse represent clients in a variety of personal injury cases, including assaults and cases involving vicarious liability.

Not exact matches

Vicarious liability involves placing the liability for one's actions upon another person.

Attorneys who specialize in handling motor vehicle accidents involving commercial trucks understand vicarious liability, and how it relates to pursuing the rights of accident victims in court.

We have often acted in such claims involving a Human Rights Act claim and complex issues over vicarious liability.

From this morning's New York Law Journal comes a report on a case decided by a New York trial court, holding that Zipcar, the «car - sharing» service currently operating in 50 cities and 100 universities around the country, is shielded from vicarious liability for accidents involving its vehicles.

Claims against private hospitals, the catholic church and local authorities have involved a number of cases which have resulted in the development of the law in respect of vicarious liability.

Successfully defended and obtained dismissal of all claims against a Fortune 500 telecommunication company and a supervisor involving battery and vicarious liability claims.

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.

New York City IP Litigation partner Craig Tractenberg authored this column discussing vicarious liability resulting from a car accident involving a food delivery service.

(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.