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.»
Not exact matches
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.
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.
Both situations would fall
under the umbrella of
vicarious liability.
Hotels are also liable for the actions of their employees
under the doctrine of «
vicarious liability» in Florida.
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.
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.
The plaintiff sustained serious injuries in the accident and filed a personal injury case against the Department
under the theory of
vicarious liability.
Sometimes, one party will be responsible for another party's negligence
under the doctrine of
vicarious liability.
The hospital was named as a party defendant
under the theory of
vicarious liability for the alleged negligence of Mizyed's treating physicians.
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.
A copyright - owning plaintiff must still establish the elements of infringement against the service provider — whether for direct infringement or
under a theory of secondary
liability (like
vicarious infringement)-- even if the defendant does not find itself within the DMCA safe harbor.
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.
887 DOS 03 DOS v. Bravo - deposits; disclosure of agency relationships; failure to cooperate with DOS investigation; proper business practices;
vicarious liability; broker failed to provide agency disclosure form; broker continued to do business
under prior firm's name after association with that firm had been terminated; broker failed to deposit monies received by her into an escrow account; broker failed to respond to DOS letters; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency by failing to follow up on the availability of an apartment in a rental transaction; broker failed to give a cash refund of a deposit received in cash upon tenant's demand therefore; corporate broker bound by the knowledge acquired by its representative broker; corporate broker's license and representative broker's license suspended for six months
79 DOS 99 Matter of DOS v. Pagano - disclosure of agency relationships; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; unauthorized practice of law; unearned commissions;
vicarious liability; fraudulent practice; jurisdiction; ex parte hearing may proceed upon proof of proper service; DOS has jurisdiction after expiration of respondents» licenses as acts of misconduct occurred and the proceedings were commenced while the respondents were licensed; licensee fails to timely provide seller client with agency disclosure form prior to entering into listing agreement and fails to timely provide agency disclosure form to buyer upon first substantive contact; broker fails to make it clear for which party he is acting; broker violates 19 NYCRR 175.24 by using exclusive right to sell listing agreement without mandatory definitions of «exclusive right to sell» and «exclusive agency»; broker breaches fiduciary duties to seller clients by misleading them as to buyer's ability to financially consummate the transaction; broker breaches his fiduciary duty to seller by referring seller to the attorney who represented the buyers when he knew or should have known such attorney could not properly protect seller's interests; improper for broker to use listing agreements providing for broker to retain one half of any deposit if forfeited by buyer as such forfeiture clause could, by its terms, allow broker to retain part of the deposit when broker did not earn a commission; broker must conduct business
under name as it appears on license; broker engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in preparing contracts for purchase and sale of real estate which did not contain a clause making it subject to the approval of the parties» attorneys and were not a form recommended by a joint bar / real estate board committee; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using sales contract which purported to change the terms of the listing agreement to include a higher commission; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using contracts of sale which were unclear, ambiguous, vague and incomplete; broker failed to amend purchase agreement to reflect amendment to increase deposit amount; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in back - dating purchase agreements; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in participating in scheme to have seller hold undisclosed second mortgage and to mislead first mortgagee about the purchaser's financial ability to purchase; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness by claiming unearned commission and filing affidavit of entitlement for unearned commission; DOS fails to establish by substantial evidence that respondent acted as undisclosed dual agent; corporate broker bound by the knowledge acquired by and is responsible for acts committed by its licensees within the actual or apparent scope of their authority; corporate and individual brokers» licenses revoked, no action taken on application for renewal until proof of payment of sum of $ 2,000.00 plus interests for deposits unlawfully retained