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.
A licence is issued by Transport Canada in accordance with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) licence Standards And Recommended Practices (SARPs). A licence can be used to fly domestically as well as internationally, while a permit does not comply with ICAO standards and therefore can only be used within Canada, unless accepted by another country. [4]
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).
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 ...
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
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.
This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing. [ 2 ] While A&M Records served as the lead plaintiff, Napster was sued by 18 different record companies, all of which were members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). [ 3 ]