Essay On Vicarious Liability

The social effects of the laws regarding the liability of teachers is an important thing to consider as laws are instigated to protect people and so if they are not being as beneficial as possible to all those involved as well as the surrounding community, then they need to be reviewed. Liability claims against teachers more often than not result in avoidable court costs and the judge deeming the teacher not liable for the injury of the child. This is why it is not particularly advantageous for the family of an injured student to follow up the claim in court.

IV. FURTHER REFORM
As referred above in the State of Liability section, the liability of teachers is protected fairly by the school by virtue of doctrine of vicarious liability. Vicarious

Vicarious liability is established in a relationship between an employer and employee according to the stipulated contract. When an injury occurs to a student, the parents are more likely to directly sue the school rather than the teachers simply because the school has ‘deeper pockets’. One of the traditional principle of negligence is that a defendant is at fault of the injury of the plaintiff. According to corrective justice theory, the teacher is obliged to restore the student back to his or her original state before the injury. However, the burden is too heavy for a teacher to compensate every damage the court finds he or she is accountable of therefore, vicarious liability shifts the burden of compensation. In other words, the doctrine of vicarious liability improved the weak aspect of corrective justice theory therefore,

Thus, it seems that further reform is necessary to implement improved scheme to prevent teachers from stepping into the doorstep of negligence. Australia had attempt to establish the no-fault scheme similar to the New Zealand’s model but had failed to adopt it on the basis it was not adequate for the disabled people. Subsequently National Disability Insurance Scheme was inquired by the federal government and commenced its scheme in 2013 to provide no-fault funding for disability support. New Zealand established the Accident Compensation Corporations to pay the damages from physical injuries to death of the person in the circumstances of the accident. The no-fault scheme should be available to those teachers that court finds liable to students’ injury but have acted reasonably within the scope of their employment. The no-fault scheme may prevent excessive personal injury claims therefore, the student who end up in injury as a result of teacher’s negligence may seek compensation through the no-fault scheme. Some viewers are concerned with the weak aspect of the no-fault system in which it lacks in deterrence and punishment. The no-fault system may not fit into the principle of corrective justice theory in a way it is less likely to deter teacher from preventing injury of the student in the future since