Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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".
Chandler v Cape plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525 is a decision of the Court of Appeal which addresses the availability of damages for a tort victim from a parent company, in circumstances where the victim suffered industrial injury during employment by a subsidiary company.
Courts that follow Cardozo's view have greater control in negligence cases. If the court can find that, as a matter of law, the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will lose his case for negligence before having a chance to present to the jury. Cardozo's view is the majority view.
A Florida woman who sued her former employer for firing her while reporting to jury duty is breathing easier after a court ruling earlier this week found she was discharged illegally. "I'm very ...
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.
For example, the Florida Court of Appeals claims “a nondelegable duty arises in situations in which for policy reasons the employer is not permitted to shift the responsibility for the proper conduct of the work to the contractor.” [5] A Nebraska court claims it means that “an employer of an independent contractor by assigning work ...
Sometimes a plaintiff and a defendant are both found to be negligent, but the court allocates full responsibility to the defendant in the interests of policy or justice. For example, in Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp., 290 A.2d 281 (N.J. 1972), a minor operating a power punch press for his employer had his hand crushed by the ram of the ...
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time recognized NIED as part of federal common law, by holding that railroad workers could pursue NIED claims against their employers under the Federal Employers Liability Act. [5] The Court recognized only the pre-Dillon form of NIED, though, in that the plaintiff had to be within a zone of danger ...