Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534 is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of vicarious liability where the Court held that a non-profit organization may be held vicariously liable in tort law for sexual misconduct by one of its employees. The decision has widely influenced jurisprudence on vicarious liability outside of Canada. [2]
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.
Dual vicarious liability is most unlikely to be a possibility if one of the candidates for such liability is also personally at fault. It would be entirely redundant, if both were. 48. Academic commentary tends to favour the possibility of dual vicarious liability, but feels that authority constrains it.
Vicarious liability is a separate theory of liability, which provides that an employer is liable for the torts of an employee under an agency theory, even if the employer did nothing wrong. The principle is that the acts of an agent of the company are assumed, by law, to be the acts of the company itself, provided the tortfeasor was acting ...
In Morris v Murray (1990) 3 AER 801 the claimant helped an obviously drunken pilot get into a small aeroplane, which crashed as it attempted to take off. This was a classic case for volenti to apply. The court held that the claimant must have known the condition of the pilot and voluntarily took the risk of negligence by agreeing to be a passenger.
As to the second, he felt that the vicarious liability regime is best seen as a response to a number of policy concerns: It is not merely a mechanism by which the employer guarantees the employee's primary liability, but has the broader function of transferring to the enterprise itself the risks created by the activity performed by its agents.
Respondeat superior (Latin: "let the master answer"; plural: respondeant superiores) is a doctrine that a party is responsible for (and has vicarious liability for) acts of his agents. [ 1 ] : 794 For example, in the United States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their ...
Strict liability is imposed upon the manufacturers of moveable things (i.e. product liability) by article 1468 for injuries caused by safety defects. [ 25 ] [ d ] An individual is exempt from civil liability in cases of force majeure (article 1470), [ 27 ] harm caused in the process of assisting or rescuing another (article 1471), [ 28 ] and in ...