Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, 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.
The general rule in criminal law is that there is no vicarious liability. This reflects the general principle that crime is composed of both an actus reus (the Latin tag for "guilty act") and a mens rea (the Latin tag for "guilty mind") and that a person should only be convicted if they are directly responsible for causing both elements to occur at the same time (see concurrence).
Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 is an English tort law case, on the issue of where an employee is acting within the course of their employment. Vicarious liability was tenuously found under John William Salmond's test for course of employment, which states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was ...
Qui facit per alium facit per se (anglicised Late Latin), [1] which means "He who acts through another does the act himself", is a fundamental legal maxim of the law of agency. [2] It is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee in terms of vicarious liability."
Vicarious liability is another form of secondary liability for copyright infringement through which a person who himself has not directly infringed a copyright can, nevertheless, be held liable. The requirements for attracting vicarious liability under copyright law are: The defendant had the right to control the infringing activity; and
Doctrines of attribution are legal doctrines by which liability is extended to a defendant who did not actually commit the criminal act. [1]: 347 [2]: 665 Examples include vicarious liability (when acts of another are imputed or "attributed" to a defendant), attempt to commit a crime (even though it was never completed), and conspiracy to commit a crime (when it is not completed or which is ...
[1] The doctrine of respondeat superior meant the principal is liable for his agent's negligence only when the agent is acting at the time of the accident in the "course of his employment". Although the agent was doing Morison's business, he went, albeit momentarily, out of his way against his master's implied command. Morison was found liable.
Vicarious liability in English law is a doctrine of English tort law that imposes strict liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. Generally, an employer will be held liable for any tort committed while an employee is conducting their duties. [ 1 ]