Sentences with phrase «liable under the theory»

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE SITE OWNER OR PUBLISHER BE LIABLE UNDER ANY THEORY OF RECOVERY, AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, DIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF USE OR LOST PROFITS), ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY MANNER CONNECTED WITH THE USE OF INFORMATION OR SERVICES, OR THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION OR SERVICES, FROM THE WEB SITE.

If these accidents are caused by the vehicles, it is possible that the families of people who are killed may be able to hold the companies liable under theories of negligence and strict products liability.

The ruling upheld the dismissal of design defect claims in a suit alleging that certain manufacturers are liable under theories of strict (product) liability and negligence.

First, she claimed that the Bells themselves were liable under the theory of negligent supervision.

In Florida medical malpractice cases, if a doctor fails to obtain informed consent, and the patient suffers an injury as a result, the doctor may be liable under a theory of medical battery.

Earlier this month, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Pittman v. Rivera, holding that a bar owner was not liable under a theory of negligence when one of the bar's patrons struck another customer after being kicked out for being aggressive.

Ultimately, the court concluded that since the employer admitted that the employee was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident, the employer only can be held liable under the theory of respondeat superior.

In order to be liable under the theory of Premises Liability, the owner of land (or occupier, as the case may be) must have notice of the dangerous condition.

The physician is potentially liable under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, and can also be liable under the theory of negligent delegation.

The court stated that in order for the Brokerage to be liable under a theory of respondeat superior, the jury would need to find that the Salesperson was acting within the scope of her duties for the Brokerage.

Not exact matches

IN NO EVENT SHALL TOMMY BAHAMA OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATED ENTITIES OR SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER IN AN ACTION, UNDER CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR ANY OTHER THEORY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE, INABILITY TO USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE INFORMATION, SERVICES, PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE FROM THE WEBSITE, EVEN IF TOMMY BAHAMA HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

Under the Sand Court's theory of group liability, each of the group funds would be subject to the Section 16 reporting requirements if the group collectively owned 10 % or more of the security, even if an individual group fund owned less than 10 %, and each group fund could also be directly liable for any Section 16 violations.

The Appellate Court addressed the common comparison between home inspectors and doctors, lawyers, and other licensed professionals this way: «So too, certain professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, and accountants have been found liable under both tort and contract theories for economic losses causes by misrepresentations during contractual relationships.

Just as a doctor working for a corporation might be held individual liable for violating his standards of practice, inspectors in licensing states are also bound by law and can be found liable under tort and contract theories if found to be Working RE Inspector Summer 2017 9 grossly negligent or acting in violation.

In no event will Freddie Mac be liable for any damages arising out of or related to the data, including, but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential, or punitive damages, whether under a contract, tort, or any other theory of liability, even if Freddie Mac is aware of the possibility of such damages.

A defendant may be liable under a vicarious liability theory if the plaintiff demonstrates «(1) direct infringement by a primary party, (2) a direct financial benefit to the defendant, and the right and ability to supervise the infringers.»

In New Mexico, a culpable party may be held liable for an accident they caused under traditional theories of negligence law.

The plaintiff alleged that the pizza restaurant was liable under two distinct theories.

Under the theory of negligent entrustment, a person or entity that loans a vehicle to another driver may be liable for injuries in a car accident caused by that person.

Second, she claimed that their son was individually liable to her under the theory of negligence.

Under the negligence theory, a defendant is held liable for the results of actions, or inaction, when an ordinary person in the same position should have foreseen that the conduct would create an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

In British Columbia, there are two theories under which you can hold a dog owner legally liable for your damages:

Both insurance agents and insurance brokers can be held liable under tort and contract theories for their malpractice.

Under this theory, a bus company that offers transportation for a fee may be liable to those injured in an accident.

The reasons: (1) implied contractual indemnity — individual brokers were not parties to the listing agreement with sellers (only the bankrupt brokerage business was a party); and (2) equitable indemnity — although brokers were jointly and severally liable with sellers as far as buyers» damages, this theory could not be used to create a new attorney fee exposure basis under the American Rule, or else the appellate court would be creating a new exception through judicial fiat.

although brokers were jointly and severally liable with sellers as far as buyers» damages, this theory could not be used to create a new attorney fee exposure basis under the American Rule, or else the appellate court would be creating a new exception through judicial fiat.

As far as could you be liable for writing it... under our legal system you can be sued under a theory of negligence for just about any action someone thinks was unsafe or causes injury.

Under this theory, an employer may be held liable for the negligent acts of its employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment when the negligent act or omission occurred.

However, the court determined that the bar owners could not be held liable under a negligence theory.

When a commercial truck accident occurs, if an employment relationship is established between the truck driver and a trucking or shipping company, then that company can be held liable for the driver's negligence under a legal theory known as «respondeat superior.»

This fee award was affirmed because plaintiff alleged a signatory defendant was the alter ego of the nonsignatory party and, had plaintiff prevailed on this theory, the nonsignatory would have been liable for fees under Reynolds Metals (one of our Leading Cases).

This is significant because then you can become liable for injuries to kids and adults on your property under the legal theory of premises liability.

Many times, individuals can be held liable under a civil negligence theory or given a citation for failing to act accordingly during dangerous conditions.

If there are multiple defendants responsible for an accident, they may each be held liable for the full sum of the plaintiff's damages under a theory of «joint and several liability.»

The other held that if an individual harmed by lead paint exposure couldn't identify the producer, then multiple paint companies could be held liable under a legal theory known as «risk contribution.»

A manufacturer can be held liable under a products liability theory for any of the following actions / inactions: negligently designing the product, negligently manufacturing the product, failing to warn of the products dangers, breaching a warranty or misrepresenting (either fraudulently or innocently) the product.

Under the theory of pure comparative negligence, each party can be held liable for the portion of the accident that is their fault.

In other cases, plaintiffs have successfully argued that HMOs and other institutional defendants are vicariously liable for the actions of physicians under theories of respondeat superior and apparent authority.

Respondeat Superior: Under this theory, an employer may be liable to a victim in a negligence action when their employee commits a negligent act while acting within the «course and scope» of their employment.

I may have broken my toe and clearly, under their theory, they are liable.

A municipality, however, may not be found liable under § 1983 «based on a theory of respondeat superior or simply for employing a tortfeasor.»

The answer to «who are they going to sue» is always the same, no matter what the suit is about: They will sue everyone with any connection to the loss, under the theory that you might be found liable and if not they can always drop you from the suit later.

Subject to any non-excludable rights and to the maximum extent permitted under the law, in no event will Relationships Australia (NSW) Limited and its employees be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, direct, indirect, punitive, special, consequential damages, lost profits, lost data or business interruption) arising out of the use, inability to use, or the results of use of this Site, any web sites linked to this Site, or the materials or information contained at any or all such sites, whether based on contract, tort, statute, common law, equity or any other legal theory and whether or not advised of the possibility of such damages.

Limitation of Liability In no event and under no legal or equitable theory, whether in tort, contract, strict liability or otherwise, shall Jones Lang LaSalle be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of any use of the information contained herein, including, without limitation, damages for lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of data, work stoppage, accuracy of results, or computer failure or malfunction.

In no event and under no legal or equitable theory, whether in tort, contract, strict liability or otherwise, shall Jones Lang LaSalle be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of any use of the information contained herein, including, without limitation, damages for lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of data, work stoppage, accuracy of results, or computer failure or malfunction.