Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Scope of employment is the legal consideration of the various activities which may ... Extreme examples would likely find the employer is liable for the employee ...
Frolic and detour in the law of torts occur when an employee (or agent) makes a physical departure from the service of his employer (or principal).A detour occurs when an employee or agent makes a minor departure from his employer's charge whereas a frolic is a major departure when the employee is acting on his own and for his own benefit, rather than a minor sidetrack in the course of obeying ...
Each employment contract contains a job description including the range of activities that an employee is reasonably expected to perform. Scope of employment often identifies demotion, transfer to different responsibilities, and modification or increasing current responsibilities. Travel and relocation can also be discussed in this section.
When applied to physical torts, an employer–employee relationship must be established (no vicarious liability is established for work performed as an independent contractor) and the act must be committed within the scope of employment (substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to ...
Given the conditions, [23] if the worker is in the agent-principal relationship, he is the employee of the company, and if the employee's invention is in the scope of employment i.e. if the employee creates a new product or process to increase the productivity and create organizations' wealth by utilizing the resources of the company, then the ...
In order for such a duty to exist, the injury to the claimant must be "reasonably foreseeable", [4] meaning, for example, that the type of employment must be one in which an unfit employee could cause harm of the type which occurred, [3] and the claimant is the type of person to whom such harm would be a "reasonably foreseeable consequence". [5]
The Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act's primary purpose is "to protect federal employees from personal liability for common law torts committed within the scope of their employment, while providing persons injured by the common law torts of federal employees with an appropriate remedy against the United States". [1]
Morris v CW Martin & Sons Ltd, [59] for example establishes vicarious liability of thefts by an employee, where there is a non-delegable duty to keep the claimant's possessions safe. [60] However, the scope of such liability was limited to torts committed in the course of employment, under the second limb of Salmond's course of employment test.