Sentences with phrase «vicarious liability claims»

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

Partnerships, by their very nature, invite vicarious liability claims.

Likely the most common cases today relate to vicarious liability claims made by consumers or others that embroil the franchiser.

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.

While allowing the vicarious liability claim to proceed, the Court held that the plaintiff could not found a claim on an alleged breach of the safeguarding provision in British Columbia's public sector privacy act.

Not exact matches

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

Meghann McTague examines the impact of recent case law on the scope of vicarious liability in abuse claims

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

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

Another approach is to pursue a claim based on an agency theory (like vicarious liability or respondeat superior).

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 obtained dismissal of claims based in vicarious liability.

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.

Tags: Duty of Care, forseeability, Fullowka v. Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd., Intional Torts, Negligently Failing to Prevent Harm by Others, Priest Sexual Abuse Claims, Proximity, sexual abuse civil claims, Supreme Court of Canada, Teacher Sexual Abuse Claims, Third Party Liability, vicarious liability Posted in Sexual Assault Civil Cases, Uncategorized Direct Link Comments OffClaims, Proximity, sexual abuse civil claims, Supreme Court of Canada, Teacher Sexual Abuse Claims, Third Party Liability, vicarious liability Posted in Sexual Assault Civil Cases, Uncategorized Direct Link Comments Offclaims, Supreme Court of Canada, Teacher Sexual Abuse Claims, Third Party Liability, vicarious liability Posted in Sexual Assault Civil Cases, Uncategorized Direct Link Comments OffClaims, Third Party Liability, vicarious liability Posted in Sexual Assault Civil Cases, Uncategorized Direct Link Comments Liability, vicarious liability Posted in Sexual Assault Civil Cases, Uncategorized Direct Link Comments liability Posted in Sexual Assault Civil Cases, Uncategorized Direct Link Comments Off top ^

The plaintiff accordingly moved after closing arguments to amend his statement of claim to plead vicarious liability and a duty to supervise.

There was no contract with Holdings, and given that Holdings was not the owner, there could be no claim in tort for vicarious liability.

Two of the major concerns with the letters that I review in the article are that they (1) advance claims rooted in parental vicarious liability and (2) demand damages for a pro-rated portion of overall security costs incurred by a retailer, as discussed above.

Now that claims are more likely to proceed on the basis of the vicarious liability of employers, there will be narrower factual disputes to consider which will have a significant bearing on determining whether or not a fair trial can proceed.

The trust argued that imposing vicarious liability «would increase very considerably the volume of claims based on stress, anxiety or other emotional problems at work.

Four years on from Majrowski, Waller LJ's comments give a fair indication of how the courts view claims based on vicarious liability for breach of PHA 1997.

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.

Facing many compensation claims by victims of child abuse, the Catholic Church initially sought to challenge the scope of vicarious liability, arguing (for example) that it could not be liable for sexual abuse committed by a priest where the victim was not a Catholic and therefore (it argued) there was not a sufficiently close connection between the individual priest's wrongful acts and his priestly status (see Maga v The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church [2010] EWCA Civ 256).

Tags: administrative law, civil privacy claims, privacy claims, privacy class actions, vicarious liability

(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.

A named insured is covered for claims that arise out of its vicarious liability for negligence committed by someone acting on its behalf.

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