Sentences with phrase «re vicarious liability»

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.

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

There, the Ontario Court of Appeal held there is no vicarious liability when a negligent driver violates the express conditions of consent given by the vehicle's owner.

That's vicarious liability, call it what you will.

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.

The point of law in JGE, a technical legal point, of whether there could be vicarious liability for a diocesan priest, a non-employee, was generally misunderstood in media reports and erroneous reporting was widespread.

A consequence of that is the vicarious liability of the principal for any wrong - doings of his agent.

Not exact matches

Eoghan Cameron, BASC council member for Scotland, said: «In recent years there has been a plethora of legislative measures, including vicarious liability, introduced to tackle raptor persecution.

You acknowledge and agree that neither HBO nor any of its affiliates, agents, licensees, successors or assigns has now, or shall have in the future, any duty or liability, direct or indirect, vicarious, contributory or otherwise, with respect to the infringement or protection of any copyright in and to your Invited Submissions, and that HBO and its affiliates, agents, licensees, successors or assigns are not responsible for the loss, deletion, failure to store or misdelivery of any Invited Submissions.

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.»

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 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.

It appears tolerably clear that a spontaneous act that is merely linked to employment because that employment provides the opportunity to commit that tort will likely not found vicarious liability (though compare and contrast to the decision of the House of Lords in Lister).

These cases can be particularly hard to navigate because there are many factors in play, including workers» compensation availability, vicarious liability, and insurance issues.

It is important to consider this potential means of proving vicarious liability, given an appropriate fact situation, in addition to the possibility of proving non-delegable duty.

The concepts presented here offer initial guidance in what can be a long and challenging process: proving vicarious liability for the negligent acts of a non-employee.

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

Under ordinary rules of vicarious liability, any employer should also be liable.

There have been a number of cases across the country that have attempted to expand vicarious liability of companies for exactly these situations.

The commercial truck driver isn't the only one who may be held responsible for your injuries, medical bills and time lost from work due to 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.

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

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.

That's not to say there couldn't be a civil suit by the survivors of the victim, in which case vicarious liability could leave both John and Bill to share responsibility for the accident.

Consequently it may be that decisions in Majrowski and Conn are limited to vicarious liability cases and stress claims.

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.

These would include, but not be limited to: joint employment, independent contracting, vicarious liability, taxes, etc..

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.

The legal doctrine that allows this type of claim against a third party is called vicarious liability.

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.

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.

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

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.

In deciding whether vicarious liability exists, the full nature of the relationship between the parties must be considered.

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.

This decision confirms that courts are beginning to take a more flexible approach to vicarious liability arguments, at least in the United Kingdom.

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.

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.

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

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.

The MoJ appealed to the Supreme Court who rejected the appeal and upheld the principle that in non-employment relationships where the wrongdoer is integrated into the defendant's operation and the defendant has created the risk of wrongdoing by assigning responsibility to the wrongdoer, vicarious liability will likely follow.

The court explained «to permit vicarious liability where there is no direct liability would be to accomplish indirectly that which could not be accomplished [directly].»

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 trial judge didn't suggest that, somehow, the agreement contained a clause that allowed the plaintiff to continue against the remaining defendant (s) for more than their own shares — their own shares would include a share based on vicarious liability, but that wasn't an issue in the case.