Sentences with phrase «vicarious liability on»

There was also an interesting attempt to deny any vicarious liability on the basis that the pilot was not authorised to «mishandle or carry out any activities which was [sic] not consistent with normal and safe landing procedure» and that «in the event such mishandling occurred, it was outside the scope of the pilots employment.»

Violation of CASL's CEM rules can result in severe administrative penalties (up to $ 1 million per violation for individuals and up to $ 10 million per violation for organizations), civil liability through a private right of action (commencing July 1, 2017) and vicarious liability on employers, directors and officers.

When the employee of a New Orleans business causes an injury, Louisiana State Law places vicarious liability on the employer if the employee was in exercise of the functions in which he or she is employed.

[31] I am of the view that the question of vicarious liability on the facts of this case can not be resolved on a pleadings motion.

In addition to alleging vicarious liability on the basis of respondeat superior, plaintiff is also alleging premises liability.

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.

Not exact matches

But you still ultimately bear vicarious liability for the actions of your agents on your behalf,» he said.

This shall not apply to the liability for damages arising from the injury to life or limb as well as for any other damage based on a breach of duty thorough wilful intent or gross negligence on the part of the Hotel, a legal representative or a vicarious agent of the Hotel.

The liability is a vicarious one in that it is justified by policy considerations as opposed to any failing on the defendant's part.

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.

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.

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

After several constitutional challenges based on equal protection and Congressional power, the Graves Amendment to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, 49 U.S.C. § 30106 (2005) essentially eliminated vicarious liability for rental car companies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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»).

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

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.

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 Finlayson, the Court held that the vicarious liability of an owner rests on possession rather than operation of the vehicle.

In a judgment that sheds light on the current approach to both vicarious liability and non-delegable duties of care, Cockerill J held that: (1) the MOJ had not breached its limited direct duty of care, (2) did not owe a non-delegable duty of care and (3) was not vicariously liable.

The decision represents another significant expansion of the scope of the law on vicarious liability in the claimant's favour.

In order to succeed in a truck accident case against an employer, a plaintiff can rely on the theory of vicarious liability.

One of the most common scenarios in which vicarious liability comes up involves an employee who is driving on behalf of an employer and gets into an accident or creates a hazard.

However, post Hoare, many more abuse cases will be based on vicarious liability of the defendant for the assault.

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.

Matters have been further complicated by the influence of Canadian judges who have developed their own analysis of the vicarious liability of organisations for child abuse, based on the notion of «enterprise risk».

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.

In general, the FTCA relates only to the vicarious tort liability of the entity, the United States government, on a respondeat superior theory, arising from an agency or employment relationship some some other person or entity that acts on its behalf.

On the matter of vicarious liability, the minority view of Lord Scott in Kuddus, put forward by counsel on behalf of the defendant, was rejecteOn the matter of vicarious liability, the minority view of Lord Scott in Kuddus, put forward by counsel on behalf of the defendant, was rejecteon behalf of the defendant, was rejected.

The only condition the statute expressly allows the owner to place on his vicarious liability is consent.

Second, to add belt to braces, the judgment goes on to consider in some detail the decision of the court of Appeal in the leading case of Jones v Tower Boot Co [1997] 2 All ER 406, [1997] IRLR 168, which held that a purposive interpretation is to be given to the general vicarious liability provisions in the discrimination statutes in order to achieve their aim, even at the cost of going further than the normal common law rules; this was held to be equally applicable to the parallel provisions on agency.

On the question of employer liability for the unpleasantness of the other staff members, one problem is that, unlike the discrimination legislation, the whistleblowing provisions have no specific vicarious liability rules, but the EAT applied «ordinary» principles; in particular, they relied on Cumbria CC v Carlisle - Morgan [2007] IRLR 31On the question of employer liability for the unpleasantness of the other staff members, one problem is that, unlike the discrimination legislation, the whistleblowing provisions have no specific vicarious liability rules, but the EAT applied «ordinary» principles; in particular, they relied on Cumbria CC v Carlisle - Morgan [2007] IRLR 31on Cumbria CC v Carlisle - Morgan [2007] IRLR 314.

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.

On the contrary most people would probably be shocked that legal responsibility for a playground accident had been laid at the door of a playground supervisor — though her employers were sued on the basis of vicarious liability, it was her «fault» that gave rise to that liabilitOn the contrary most people would probably be shocked that legal responsibility for a playground accident had been laid at the door of a playground supervisor — though her employers were sued on the basis of vicarious liability, it was her «fault» that gave rise to that liabiliton the basis of vicarious liability, it was her «fault» that gave rise to that liability.

On the question of vicarious liability, the Court held that Carlisle - Morgan was quite simply wrongly decided.

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.

(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.

The Seller then sued the Brokerage on the theory of vicarious liability for the breach of fiduciary duty and fraud by its salesperson Fogleman.

241 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Himark Realty — failure to appear at hearing; cease - and - desist; duty to supervise sales associates; vicarious liability; ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper service; salesperson inadvertently calls home listed on cease - and - desist list which demonstrates incompetency; broker is obligated to supervise real estate brokerage activities of its salespersons and is vicariously liable for their misconduct, limited only with regard to penalty in cases where the broker lacked actual knowledge of misconduct or did not retain any benefit derived from that misconduct; corporate broker, representative broker and salesperson each to pay $ 250 fine

287 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Uqdah Realty & Management Corp. — deposits; jurisdiction; fraudulent practices; failure to pay judgment; vicarious liability; notary public; disclosure of agency relationship; broker violated 19 NYCRR 175.1 when he deposited escrow funds into his operating account; broker committed conversion when his operating account fell below deposit amount; broker engaged in fraudulent practices when he illegally retained buyer's trust funds and attempted to qualify prospective buyer for mortgage by falsely stating their employment; broker failed to disclose his agency relationship to his client; failure to pay judgment; corporate real estate broker vicariously liable and charged with actual knowledge of violation of law because of representative broker's cognizant misconduct as corporate officer; broker is not required to deposit a refundable commission in an escrow account unless contractually demanded; corporate broker and representative broker's license revoked; restitution of deposit of $ 12,000 plus interest; notary public commission revoked based on misconduct as a real estate licensee

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

649 DOS 02 DOS v. Holzbach — disclosure of agency relationships; proper business practices; sanctions; unauthorized practice of law; vicarious liability; broker fails to timely provide agency disclosure form to buyer although disclosure form could have been faxed to and received from buyer; broker back dated agency disclosure form demonstrating incompetency; use of designated agent form without the use of required agency disclosure form pursuant to RPL § 443 (4); use of «removal of contingency» addendum to contract which did not contain an attorney approval clause and was not on a form jointly approved by the County Bar Association and REALTOR Association constituted the unauthorized practice of law; corporate broker liable for the acts of its representative broker; proper to impose a higher fine after hearing than that which was offered in settlement (joint fine of $ 2,000.00 offered); associate broker fined $ 2,000.00, representative broker fined $ 1,000.00, and corporate broker fined $ 2,000.00