Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Vicarious Liability
Vicarious (Employer) Liability
The several different lawsuits that Cartman's employer Authorit-I is facing as a result of his actions, though some of these have more merit and pose greater risks than others. According to the principles of vicarious liability or employer liability, an employer can be held responsible for damages that occur as a result of their employees' actions during the course of their employment, though there are several significant limiting factors to this liability (LL 2011; Nolo 2011; BD 2011). The exact scope and definition of liability is not something that is entirely black and white in the law in many cases, and thus there are differing opinions regarding exactly when an employee's actions fall under the scope of an employer's liability (Nolo 2011; Gale 2008; Michaels 2011). By examining several varying opinions, it is possible to arrive at some conclusions regarding the judgments that should be...
In this instance, though Cartman is certainly criminally and financially responsible for the theft, his employer was not. Vicarious liability only attaches when damages occur as the employee is carrying out the tasks of his employer, and though this can be broadly defined (e.g. something that happens during a side trip as a break from employment could still lead to employer liability) it does not mean that the company is responsible for all of Cartman's actions during his period of employment (Nolo 2011). Some interpretations of the law hold that employers are only liable for their employees' actions when the employer has a duty of care to the damaged party (Gale 2008).
In the case of the ring, Cartman was not at the jewelry store or even at the mall on company…
References
BD. (2011). Employer's liability. Accessed 2 April 2011. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/employer-s-liability.html
Gale. (2008). Vicarious liability. Accessed 2 April 2011. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Employer+liability
LL. (2011). Vicarious liability. Accessed 2 April 2011. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/u035.htm
Micahels, A. (2011). Vicarious liability. Accessed 2 April 2011. http://law.jrank.org/pages/2255/Vicarious-Liability.html
Nolo. (2011). Employer Liability for an Employee's Bad Acts. Accessed 2 April 2011. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employer-liability-employees-bad-acts-29638.html
Company Policy Draft a company policy on use of the internet by employees. Draft it in the form of a memo to employees. Take into consideration the following issues: Is it realistic to believe that all personal use of the internet at work can be prohibited? How do you deal with this? Do employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in, e.g., an email they might send at work? A website they might visit?
Causation: Irrespective of whether or not ABC Apartments satisfied its duty of reasonable care with respect to the safety of its tenants, the harm for which liability is claimed must relate directly to any failure to satisfy that standard. More particularly, to establish liability, the plaintiff must also establish that any negligence of ABC in failing to exercise reasonable care was the proximate cause of the harm that resulted (Freidman 2005). For
Law Sexual Harassment Teddy's Supplies' CEO Dear Sir, In pursuing the facts of the case I think Teddy's is having a written sexual harassment policy and a method for employees to report sexual harassment -- either to the supervisor or in secret by using the www.ReportTeddysafely.com. As an employer some of the necessities stipulated by law have been followed. The Supreme Court defined two principles regarding the sexual harassment at the workplace.
Mitchell. The left arm of the child had to be amputated because of the unsuccessful vascular operation. According to the court session, there was a question to be answered in relation to the agency theory in determining the role of Dr. Williams in this encounter (Tenn Ct App 1970). The article also focuses on reviewing the case of Edmands v. Chamberlain Memorial Hospital in the context of 1978. The case
Question 3: Will Kyle win his lawsuit against Authorit-I for his injuries? It is not clear that vicarious liability applies in the case of Kyle's injuries. Cartman was certainly not an employee of Authorit-I at the time, and was no doubt aware of this fact, yet Kyle had not been made aware of this and was presented with a man claiming to still be an agent of the company, treating him
This being the case, the liability insurance company will pass the suit to their attorney, who will then be responsible for filling a written answer. The next phase in the litigation process will be a series of discovery, where each side will be given the opportunity to research the case by asking each other questions and demanding specified documents. Based on this gathered information, the liability insurance company again will