Vicarious Liability and Law Enforcement

Vicarious Liability and Law Enforcement Vicarious liability is a legal concept which refers to one party being held liable for the injury or damage sustained by another party, in spite of the fact that they had no active involvement in the incident. Often we will find supervisors or companies charged with vicarious liability, since they bear responsibility for the actions of their employees, but they are not the only ones that this law applies to. In everyday acts the law of vicarious liability applies.

Who Can Be Charged With Vicarious Liability? There are a variety of situations in which a party may be charged with vicarious liability including: Contractors often face charges of vicarious liability if their subcontractors fail to complete a job, perform the job inadequately, or are found guilty of other contract violations. Parents may be charged with vicarious liability when the actions of their children cause harm or damage to another person or property.

Employers may be involved in a number of situations in which they face vicarious liability, including sexual harassment of one employee by another, discriminatory behavior by an employee against fellow employees or customers, or any other action in which an employee causes harm, regardless of whether the employee is acting against policies set by the employer. And most recently, vicarious liability suits are being explored against the manufacturers of mobile phones whose use contributes to car accidents.

The intent behind vicarious liability is to hold the proper party accountable when harm is committed. Parents, for instance, have a responsibility to ensure their children abide by society's laws. In some cases, however, a vicarious liability charge is leveled against a person who cannot control another person or situation. (Vicarious, 2006) What Is the History Behind the Concept? Before there was law enforcement, local communities operated self-help systems to keep the peace and enforce contracts.

Before the thirteenth century an common law arose that there existed an involuntary collective responsibility by the whole community for the actions committed by each member of the community. Later this was formalized into law as the Community Responsibility System. It was enforced because community reputation would be lost and retaliation by the injured party would be leveled against the community if compensation was not paid. Costly wars were fought over the acts of one person committing a crime against someone in another community, and this had to be avoided.

While communities were small, the Community Responsibility System worked well, but as populations increased and trade stretched between countries, the Community Responsibility System could not keep up with the needs for more personal accountability and responsibility. Eventually sheriffs and judges were appointed in England (around 1133) and law enforcement of responsibility by individuals began. As time passed, in most countries individual responsibility won out, but in Germany and Italy, collective systems operated as late as the sixteenth century.

Imposing liability on others despite their lack of culpability is sometimes used as common law and courts have evolved the principle that an employer can put responsibility for some acts onto employees when an act is committed during the course of employment. The distribution of costs of accidents and other injuries and losses has been passed along by employers through insurance and higher costs by employers to employees, customers and clients. In criminal cases, there is no vicarious liability.

The principle this relies upon is that a crime is composed of both an "actus reus" (guilty act) and a "mens rea" (guilty mind), and that a person with these two should be convicted if both are present at the same time. Therefore, it is very difficult to prove that another party is responsible for a criminal act, as the culprit has to have both a guilty act and a guilty mind, not just one, as the parent or employer might have. Vicarious liability in the U.S.

applies to crimes that affect the public welfare, but do not require prison terms as punishment. There are situations where vicarious liability applies, as we mentioned, where manufacturers of defective products are responsible for the situations that their products may cause. Also in cases where contractors are responsible for their subcontractors' work and where parents are responsible for the actions of minor children, vicarious liability can be applied.

In other cases, such as an employee serving alcohol to a minor, the employee is at fault because the punishment may include a prison term. The question of.