The outcome of
a vicarious liability claim against an employer of a dog owner in a recent Maine dog bite injury lawsuit hinged on whether the employee was acting in the course and scope of employment at the time the dog attacked.
Not exact matches
The legal doctrine that allows this type of
claim against a third party is called
vicarious liability.
Will the ruling open the door for others to
claim vicarious liability against organizations whose independent contractors do wrong?
The
claim was brought
against the Claimant's employer (even though it was an individual that was alleged to have been the harasser) on the basis that they were responsible for her actions (known as «
vicarious liability»).
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.
Claiming $ 10 million in compensatory and punitive damages, the plaintiff asserted negligence and wantonness
claims against the tower subcontractor and
claims for
vicarious liability, premises
liability, and negligent / wanton failure to warn
against AT&T Mobility.
Successfully defended and obtained dismissal of all
claims against a Fortune 500 telecommunication company and a supervisor involving battery and
vicarious liability claims.
Allstate denies Araujo third - party coverage and brings two motions for summary judgment: one to dismiss Fernandes»
claim as
against Almeida (based on a theory of
vicarious liability), the other to dismiss Araujo's
claim on the ground she was not entitled to coverage (as she drove the ATV without a proper licence).
In Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v Zekria Wakilzada, 2017 ONSC 2409, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed Louis Vuitton to continue their action
against a Toronto - area flea market in a novel
claim alleging that the landlord was liable in negligence, contributory IP infringement and
vicarious liability, because of the sale of counterfeit Louis Vuitton merchandise by flea market vendors.
He made no
claim against the departmental manager herself, and his
claim was based exclusively on the trust's
vicarious liability for his manager's alleged breach of the statutory prohibition of harassment.