Sentences with phrase «vicarious liability states»

Not exact matches

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.

A lot of other states simply call it vicarious liability, but the important thing is if that's what you're trying to show, that a company or employer should be responsible for the negligence of their employees, you need to be able to show that the person who was negligent, the employee, was acting for the most part in furtherance of their employer's interests, doing the job they were hired to do.

The federal and state laws also allow for vicarious liability in the case of commercial tractor - trailers.

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.

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.

Coupled with principles of vicarious liability of the company for the acts, actions and state of mind of management, agents and intermediaries around the world, it is easy to see why multi-national companies, with US links, are coming to regard corruption as one of their biggest corporate risks.

(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.

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.

(This sort of vicarious liability isn't in effect in all states.

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

189 DOS 99 Matter of DOS v. Naftal - listing agreements; deposits; unauthorized practice of law; vicarious liability; amendment of pleading to conform to the proof; improperly altering listing agreement without the consent or knowledge of principal to show the potential commission split with buyer's broker to meet MLS requirements; preparing and submitting fraudulent MLS change notifications purporting to extend and alter listings; deposit of escrow funds into operating account; preparation of lease constitutes the unauthorized practice of law; pleadings may be amended to conform to the proof and encompass a charge not stated in the complaint where the issue has been fully litigated by the parties and is closely enough related to the stated charges that there is no surprise or prejudice to the respondent; continuing to offer properties for sale after preparation of forged listing extensions violates 19 NYCRR 175.10; DOS fails to establish violation of 19 NYCRR 175.12 for failure to provide copy of listing extension where extension was not authorized by principal; DOS fails to demonstrate demand for unearned commission where broker may have believed they were entitled to a commission; broker's licenses suspended for one year and thereafter until such time as restitution in the amounts of $ 5,000.00 and $ 2,055.40 is made