Shopping on line can be easy, simple and save you lots of money. It can also take a lot of your time, frustrate you, and result in unwanted purchases. Now the same can be said for regular high street shopping, but with the vast opportunity presented by the Internet it will pay you to spend a few minutes reading this and understanding how to better optimize your Vicarious Liability shopping experience:
1. Compare - without doubt the biggest advantage that the Vicarious Liability offers shoppers today is the ability to compare thousands of Vicarious Liability at a time. This is a great thing, but not necessarily all the time! Too much can be daunting at times so take advantage of the great comparison sites and where possible let them do the hard work for you.
2. Research - if it has been said it will be on the internet. Ignorance is no longer a justifiable reason for buying the wrong thing. Take the time to research in detail everything that you could possible want to know about
3. Testimonials - don't know anybody that has bought a Vicarious Liability? Wrong! If the Vicarious Liability is good the internet will let you know. Use the Internet as a friend and get testimonials before you buy.
4. Questions - Got a question about Vicarious Liability then search the Forums, FAQ's, Blogs etc. Don't be afraid to ask .....
5. Reputation - Never heard of the company selling Vicarious Liability? Don't worry, no reason why you should know every company in the world, but you know someone that does! Use the internet to find out what people are saying about Vicarious Liability and build up a picture of their reputation for sales, returns, customer service, delivery etc.
6. Returns - still worried that even after all of the above your Vicarious Liability wont be what you want? Check out the returns policy. There is so much competition now that someone, somewhere is bound to offer the terms that you are comfortable with.
7. Feedback - happy with your Vicarious Liability then let people know, after all you are depending on others people input in your buying decision, so why not give a little back.
8. Security - check for the yellow padlock on the Vicarious Liability site before you buy, and the s after http:/ /i.e. https:// = a secure site
9. Contact - got a question about Vicarious Liability, or want to leave a comment then check out the sites contact page. Reputable companies have them and respond.
10. Payment - ready to pay for your Vicarious Liability, then use your credit card or PayPal! Be aware of companies that don't accept them, there may be genuine reasons but given the huge amount of choice you have when buying online there is no reason at all not to buy via credit card or PayPal.
:
This article is about vicarious liability in private litigation; for vicarious liability in criminal law, see Vicarious liability (criminal).
Vicarious liability is a form of
strict liability,
secondary liability that arises under the
common law doctrine of agency (law) –
respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of
enterprise liability.
Employers' liability
Employers are vicariously liable, under the
respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of
employment. Nolo Law web site For an act to be considered within the course of employment it must either be authorised or be so connected with an authorised act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it. Courts sometime distinguish between an employee's "detour" or "
frolic (law)". For instance, an employer will be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability. Neither, generally, will an employer be held liable for assault (tort) or battery (tort) committed by employees, unless the use of force was part of their employment (e.g.
police officers, nightclub bouncers), or they were in a field likely to create friction with persons they encountered (e.g. car re-possessors). However, the employer of an
independent contractor is not held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of the contractor, except where the contractor injures someone to whom the employer owes a non-delegable
duty of care, such as where the employer is a school authority and the injured party a pupil.
Employers are also
liable under the
common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, "qui facit per alium facit per se", i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests. This is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in Criminal Law or Tort for the acts or omissions of another.
Principals' liability
The owner of an automobile can be held vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person to whom the car has been loaned, as if the owner was a principal and the driver his or her agent,
if the driver is using the car primarily for the purpose of performing a task for the owner. Courts have been reluctant to extend this liability to the owners of other kinds of chattel. For example, the owner of a plane will not be vicariously liable for the actions of a pilot to whom he or she has lent it to perform the owner's purpose.
One example is in the case of a bank, finance company or other
lienholder performing a repossession of an automobile from the
registered owner for non-payment, the lienholder has a non-delegatable duty not to cause a breach of the peace in performing the repossession, or it will be liable for damages even if the repossession is performed by an agent. This requirement means that whether a repossession is performed by the lienholder or by an agent, the repossessor must not cause a breach of the peace or the lienholder will be held resonsible. This requirement not to breach the peace is held upon the lienholder even if the breach is caused by, say, the debtor objecting to the repossession or resists the repossession. In the court case of
MBank El Paso v. Sanchez, Court citation, where a hired repossessor towed away a car even after the registered owner locked herself in it, the court decided that this was an unlawful breach of the peace and declared the repossession invalid. The debtor was also awarded $1,200,000 in damages from the bank.
Parental liability
In the
United States, the question of parental responsibility (criminal) generally and the issue of parental vicarious liability for the torts of their children is evolving. What is clear is that parents can be held liable for their own negligent acts, such as failure to supervise a child, or failure to keep a dangerous instrument such as a handgun outside the reach of their children.
The liability of corporations in tort
In English law, a
corporation can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide in which circumstances the law of agency or vicarious liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort for the
frauds of its directors or senior officers. If liability for the particular tort requires a state of mind, then to be liable, the director or senior officer must have that state of mind and it must be attributed to the company. In
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v Securities Commission 2 AC 500, two employees of the company, acting within the scope of their authority but unknown to the directors, used company funds to acquire some shares. The question was whether the company knew, or ought to have known that it had acquired those shares. The Privy Council held that it did. Whether by virtue of their actual or ostensible authority as agents acting within their authority (see
Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. AC 716) or as employees acting in the course of their employment (see
Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. 1 AC 717), their acts and omissions and their knowledge could be attributed to the company, and this could give rise to liability as joint tortfeasors where the directors have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on behalf of the company.
So if a director or officer is expressly authorised to make representations of a particular class on behalf of the company, and fraudulently makes a representation of that class to a Third Party causing loss, the company will be liable even though the particular representation was an improper way of doing what he was authorised to do. The extent of authority is a question of fact and is significantly more than the fact of an employment which gave the employee the opportunity to carry out the fraud. In
Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Limited 2 QB 711, a company secretary fraudulently hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the managing director. A company secretary routinely enters into contracts in the company's name and has administrative responsibilities that would give apparent authority to hire cars. Hence, the company was liable.
Criticisms of vicarious liability
As vicarious liability does not place liability on the tortfeasor, but rather on someone who is supposed to have control over the tortfeasor, it may be argued that vicarious liability goes against the legal standard of "natural justice".
The principle of vicarious liability can also be bypassed with a legal instrument known as Employers Indemnity. When an employer is successfully sued, they have the option of suing the tortfeasor for an indemnity to recover the damages back. This principle is greatly criticised when used in the case of
Lister v Romford Ice Cold Storage
References
- Department of Trade & Industry. Company Law Review: Attribution of Liability
:
This article is about vicarious liability in private litigation; for vicarious liability in criminal law, see Vicarious liability (criminal).
Vicarious liability is a form of
strict liability,
secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of
agency (law) –
respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability.
Employers' liability
Employers are vicariously liable, under the
respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of
employment. Nolo Law web site For an act to be considered within the course of employment it must either be authorised or be so connected with an authorised act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it. Courts sometime distinguish between an employee's "detour" or "frolic (law)". For instance, an employer will be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability. Neither, generally, will an employer be held liable for assault (tort) or battery (tort) committed by employees, unless the
use of force was part of their employment (e.g.
police officers, nightclub bouncers), or they were in a field likely to create friction with persons they encountered (e.g. car re-possessors). However, the employer of an independent contractor is not held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of the contractor, except where the contractor injures someone to whom the employer owes a non-delegable
duty of care, such as where the employer is a school authority and the injured party a pupil.
Employers are also
liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, "qui facit per alium facit per se", i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests. This is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in
Criminal Law or
Tort for the acts or omissions of another.
Principals' liability
The owner of an automobile can be held vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person to whom the car has been loaned, as if the owner was a principal and the driver his or her agent,
if the driver is using the car primarily for the purpose of performing a task for the owner. Courts have been reluctant to extend this liability to the owners of other kinds of chattel. For example, the owner of a plane will not be vicariously liable for the actions of a pilot to whom he or she has lent it to perform the owner's purpose.
One example is in the case of a bank, finance company or other lienholder performing a repossession of an automobile from the registered owner for non-payment, the lienholder has a non-delegatable duty not to cause a breach of the peace in performing the repossession, or it will be liable for damages even if the repossession is performed by an agent. This requirement means that whether a repossession is performed by the lienholder or by an agent, the repossessor must not cause a breach of the peace or the lienholder will be held resonsible. This requirement not to breach the peace is held upon the lienholder even if the breach is caused by, say, the debtor objecting to the repossession or resists the repossession. In the court case of
MBank El Paso v. Sanchez, Court citation, where a hired repossessor towed away a car even after the registered owner locked herself in it, the court decided that this was an unlawful breach of the peace and declared the repossession invalid. The debtor was also awarded $1,200,000 in damages from the bank.
Parental liability
In the
United States, the question of
parental responsibility (criminal) generally and the issue of parental vicarious liability for the torts of their children is evolving. What is clear is that parents can be held liable for their own negligent acts, such as failure to supervise a child, or failure to keep a dangerous instrument such as a
handgun outside the reach of their children.
The liability of corporations in tort
In English law, a
corporation can only act through its employees and agents so it is necessary to decide in which circumstances the law of agency or vicarious liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort for the
frauds of its directors or senior officers. If liability for the particular tort requires a state of mind, then to be liable, the director or senior officer must have that state of mind and it must be attributed to the company. In
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v Securities Commission 2 AC 500, two employees of the company, acting within the scope of their authority but unknown to the directors, used company funds to acquire some shares. The question was whether the company knew, or ought to have known that it had acquired those shares. The
Privy Council held that it did. Whether by virtue of their actual or ostensible authority as agents acting within their authority (see
Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. AC 716) or as employees acting in the course of their employment (see
Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. 1 AC 717), their acts and omissions and their knowledge could be attributed to the company, and this could give rise to liability as joint tortfeasors where the directors have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on behalf of the company.
So if a director or officer is expressly authorised to make representations of a particular class on behalf of the company, and fraudulently makes a representation of that class to a Third Party causing loss, the company will be liable even though the particular representation was an improper way of doing what he was authorised to do. The extent of authority is a question of fact and is significantly more than the fact of an employment which gave the employee the opportunity to carry out the fraud. In
Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Limited 2 QB 711, a company secretary fraudulently hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the managing director. A company secretary routinely enters into contracts in the company's name and has administrative responsibilities that would give apparent authority to hire cars. Hence, the company was liable.
Criticisms of vicarious liability
As vicarious liability does not place liability on the tortfeasor, but rather on someone who is supposed to have control over the tortfeasor, it may be argued that vicarious liability goes against the legal standard of "
natural justice".
The principle of vicarious liability can also be bypassed with a legal instrument known as Employers Indemnity. When an employer is successfully sued, they have the option of suing the tortfeasor for an indemnity to recover the damages back. This principle is greatly criticised when used in the case of
Lister v Romford Ice Cold Storage
References
- Department of Trade & Industry. Company Law Review: Attribution of Liability
Vicarious Liability Of A Charity Or Its Trustees
Contents. In general, for what are trustees liable? Liability for the actions or omissions of others; What does the law cover in this area? What is vicarious liability? Who is ...
Vicarious liability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for ...
Vicarious liability (criminal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity.
Vicarious Liability
Vicarious Liability: a Latin to english definition in a UK legal context ... Vicarious Liability. An employer is vicariously liable for negligent acts or omissions by his employee ...
MYCCI: Legal Advice: Vicarious Liability
Vicarious Liability. 18 May 2006. Last year we reported the case of Majrowski v Guys Hospital where an employee had been bullied and harassed by a fellow employee.
The K-Zone: Vicarious liability
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary Vicarious liability Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:38 2006. Vicarious liability is the principle by which one person can be held liable ...
Vicarious Liability
An employer (LJMU) may be held criminally liable or liable in common law for the negligent or unlawful acts of a member of staff, even though the member of staff can be shown to ...
WCVA
Wales Council for Voluntary Action ... If you require any assistance please contact us
FAQ about Piracy or Copyright Infringement -- Chilling Effects ...
Question: What is vicarious liability? Answer: Vicarious liability, a form of indirect copyright infringement, is found where an operator has (1) the right and ability to control ...
Glossary - Vicarious liability : DWFL
Glossary term and definition for vicarious liability. ... This means that an employer may be legally responsible for discrimination and harassment which occurs in the workplace, or ...
