Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Vicarious Liability case study
Vicarious liability tort
Vicarious Liability case study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Vicarious liability is a common law concept that refers to the liability that arises when one party, such as an employer, is legally liable for the acts or omissions of another party, such as an employee. This is because employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees and those of others who come into contact with them and their business. Does vicarious liability expose businesses to too much liability? In the case study 4.1 (Tardif v. Wiebe), we learned that vicarious liability does not always applied on employers for employee’s wrongdoings. In most cases, the decisions are made upon determining weather employee was acting in their own personal capacity and interest, or in the course of their employment. Should employers always be liable for employee’s wrongdoings? …show more content…
Avalon East School Board, [2004] N.J. No. 426 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.). John Doe was a grade12 student at St. Michael’s high school in Newfoundland. He was sexual assaulted by his computer teacher, Mr. Neary, when he was taking a missed exam in a separate room. John Doe asked his teacher to stop and Mr. Neary offered him $20 dollar not to tell anyone. John Doe immediately went and told another teacher who then contacted the school board and the board called police the same day. Mr. Neary was charged with a single count of sexual assault and school board was sued on the basis of vicarious liabilities. The court ruled that school board was in fact vicariously liable for teacher’s misconduct although they did nothing to cause the assault. The court stated that it was the school board decision to give such a risky individual, as a trusted professional employee with authority over students. Therefore, the school board must be held accountable when those risks emerge and cause loss or damages to innocent
Case, Adeels Palace v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420 entails a defendant, Adeels Palace Pty Ltd and two plaintiffs, Anthony Moubarak and Antoin Fayez Bou Najem. On New Year’s Eve 2002, a function, hosted by Adeels was open to members of the public, with a charged admission fee. A dispute broke out in the restaurant. One man left the premises and later returned with a firearm. He seriously injured both respondents. One was shot in the leg and other in the stomach. The plaintiffs separately brought proceedings against the defendant in the District Court of New South Wales (NSW), claiming damages for negligence. The trial judge issued Bou Najem $170,000 and Moubarak $1,026,682.98. It was held that the duty of care was breached by the defendant as they ‘negligently’ failed to employ security for their function. The breach of duty and resulted in the plaintiff’s serious injuries.
Though the Kuehn v. Pub Zone and Soldano v. O’Daniels cases both involve attacks in a bar, one case rules in favor of the injured plaintiff and the other in favor of the owner-defendant. These rulings may initially seem contradictory, however, once the stories and the environments surrounding the attacks become clear, it becomes more obvious that one of the establishments holds more of a responsibility when it comes to the safety of their patrons. In the case of Kuehn v. Pub Zone, customer, Karl Kuehn, was assaulted in the bathroom of an establishment known to be frequented by a violent biker gang. The biker gang and its violent outbursts had become such a regular occurrence that a sign was even posted prohibiting entrance to the bar while wearing gang colors. On the day of Mr. Kuehn’s assault, members of the biker gang, wearing their gang colors, pushed passed the bouncer and entered the Pub Zone. Instead of calling the police or refusing service, the bartender decided to serve the group a drink, not only failing to enforce the Pub Zone’s own established rule, but also acting against it. This places the Pub Zone at fault for
This decision makes it clear the most important thing for a school to do is to protect the students. It also states that the board of education, whose role is to oversee the schools, must make sure that the staff of the schools is protecting those children. This case highlights that long-term abuse can happen in schools if there are not clear policies or, if there are, that there is no one ensuring that those policies are
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
Judge Mark Sanders used the teacher's admitted guilt to warn others about following in her footsteps, describing her "predacious" behavior in grooming the child, deeming her sexual assault on him serious even though it it didn't cross into sexual
The minority countered this argument when the school board said, “it is our duty, our moral obligation, to protect the children in our school from this moral danger as surely as from physical and medical dangers” (qtd. in Board of
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
...as not required to await the outcome of criminal proceedings against the students before taking their own actions against them (Goldberg v. The Regents).
“Marvin L.Pickering, a high school science teacher in Illinois wrote a letter published in a newspaper denouncing the board of education's choice of allocating of funding between athletics and academics, he also criticized the superintendent who did not inform the local taxpayers why they were actually paying more for the school. After posting the letter, the high school teacher was fired because the board claimed that he delivered false information that could affect the efficiency of the school administration, it damage the reputation of the board of education and of its superintendent and that it could possibly encourage “controversy, conflict, and dissension” between the school staff "Detrimental to the best interests of the schools"(Findlaw.com, I) . Pickering decided to sue the school for violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and of equal protection because he claimed that he has the right to free speech and is allowed the same rights as everybody else.“
... crying.” The plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 (2000) and civil rights conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 (2000). The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on the basis of qualified immunity. The court dismissed the state law claims but found that the defendant had in fact violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights due to the fact that “a state actor, through his agents, cannot randomly beat a student.” The defendant was also denied dismissal of the claim based on qualified immunity because a state actor cannot arbitrarily commit violence against a student. The plaintiff was able to show that Coach Edmundson’s conduct did violate his constitutional right of substantive due process to be free from the infliction of malicious corporal punishment by school official.
The school is to protect the students from any wrong doing towards them. Such act, parents, school official and other authorities will be contacted. The case in Oakland County MI, opens many eyes for students and parents. The school board has responsibility to report such harm. This is not taken lightly, serious offense. Students could face years in prison, or face felonies.
LaMorte, Michael. School Law: Cases and Concepts. 4th ed. London: Allyn and Bacon, 1993. Lane, Kenneth, Mary Jane Connelly, Julie Mead, Mark Gooden, and Suzanne Eckes, eds.
Generally, “a business is liable for the torts committed by an employee who is acting within the scope of his or her employment or an agent who is acting with the authority of the business” (Miller & Jentz, 2010, p. 133). When a corporation is deemed liable for the torts that an employee commits, it is referred to as indirect liability (Lichtman & Posner, 2004). If an employee commits an intentional tort, the corporation is usually not liable unless a court determines that the intentional tort could have been forseen by higher-level employees or directors (National Paralegal College,
Vicarious liability is incident only to a relationship of controlled employment, tr... ... middle of paper ... ... n any case the insurance premium that covers the claim is generally cheaper than if the employer was to directly compensate the tort victim. Therefore, the principle of vicarious liability is the best compromise which could have been reached between the needs of tort victims for compensation and the freedom of businesses to operate without excessive burdens. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] P418.
York, Christopher J. "VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF CONTROLLING PERSONS: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AND THE SECURITIES ACTS - A REVERSIBLE CONSENSUS IN THE CIRCUITS." Emory University School of Law. Emory Law Journal 313th ser. 42.Emory L.J. (1993): n. pag. Web. 3 May 1993. .