Vicarious Liability

38. Which of the following describes when an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts of the “servant” or employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment?

An employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts or omissions his employee commits during the course and scope of his employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In order for an employer to be liable there must be evidence that during the time of the negligent or omitted act, there was a master-servant relationship. Studebaker v. Nettie 's Flower Garden, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 229 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992); Jones v. Brashears, 107 S.W.3d 445 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Bargfrede v. American Income Life Ins. Co., 21 S.W.3d 160 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359 (Mo. 1963). Respondent superior applies when the master had the right or the power to control and direct the conduct of another. Bargfrede, 21 S.W.3d at 162. The master-servant relationship arises when the person charged as a master has the right to direct the method by which the master 's service is performed. Id.

An employer is liable for the actions of his employee unless they fall outside the scope of employment. Williams v. Community Drive-In Theater, Inc., 520 P.2d 1296, [p. 1297] (Kan. 1974). To fall inside the scope, the employee’s actions must (1) arise naturally from the course of their jobs and (2) intend to further employer’s interest and not done for personal reasons. Daugherty v. Allee’s Sports Bar & Grill, 260 S.W.3d 869, [p. 873] (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

2. Leanne: As a tenant who rent her parents theatre for one week, also the one that is responsible for and has control over the activities carried on at those premises, she is also consider being the occupier. For Leanne’s case, if she is below 18, then the contract between her and her parents are invalid, then she could not be sued. Otherwise she should be going through the following 4+3 negligence analysis as same as her parents.

2) A liability that may extend from an employee to the employer if the employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time the liability arose is called:

The principle of direct liability is an individual or business established on negligence or any results in harming or damaging to another individual or their property. Hospitals or providers are liable for the conduct and treatments provided by their physician members. Any damage or treatment a physician’s provides is covered by the hospital. Enterprise liability is a legal matter that a related corporations or people can be held responsible for any actions, damage or wrong

Compensatory damages of more than $68,000 were awarded and the court held that Bugden’s club bore vicarious liability for assault during being employed as a player. Vicarious liability is the legal liability imposed on one person or agent (e.g. an employer) for the wrongful acts of another, when those acts were done within the scope of the legal relationship between them, such as employment.

There is also the concept of secondary liability. This means that if, for example, an employment agency

The Classification between an independent contractor and employee has raised a number of issues throughout the past 50 years. Failing to create an effective formality to be applied by the courts to any particular case, it has lead to commercial uncertainty through Australia. This essay will analysis Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 decision regarding the high court process in distinguishing between whether there was an relationship between the employer of employer/employee or employer/independent contractor.

• Harassment by a third party: employers are potentially liable for the harassment of staff or customers by people they don't directly employ, such as a contractor.

Organizations that hire employees or volunteers are accountable for their actions and must make sure, as best they can, that the people representing them can be trusted with their clients. Employers should be well-informed on the risk of failing to conduct screening checks of potential volunteers or employees, as they may be held legally and morally accountable through vicarious liability. Vicarious liability makes an organization accountable for the behavior of volunteers or employees under certain circumstances. It functions on the supposition the organization has aggravated the risk that harm would take place. It makes sure that organizations take all rational measures to decrease the risk of harm by using methods such as screening. "If they fail to take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm to their clients, an organization (such as a school,

In R v. Redfern & Dunlop Ltd. (Aircraft Division) , the Court held that where the employees who were not in the decision making level could not be identifiable with the company and therefore were not deemed to be the controlling mind of the company. The question that comes up is that if a person at a lower level commits a crime in the name of the company, the company cannot be held liable for the same. This may pose to be a problem in the sense that the company may make a division between the senior management and the employees to avoid criminal proceedings against them

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to

The principle of vicarious liability is very controversial as it is quite broad, and the fact that personal fault on behalf of the employer is not required means that it is sometimes more difficult to attribute blame on big companies or corporations than individuals. However, there are many aspects of vicarious liability that make it suitable for its use. In nearly every case the employer is in the best position financially to compensate a claimant as they always have the ‘deepest pocket’. The whole purpose of the law of tort is to compensate the victims, the resources in question that enable the employer to have the ‘deepest pocket is provided through insurance.

This essay will explain the concepts of separate personality and limited liability and their significance in company law. The principle of separate personality is defined in the Companies Act 2006(CA) ; “subscribers to the memorandum, together with such other persons as may from time to time become members of the company are a body corporate by the name contained in memorandum.” This essentially means that a company is a separate legal personality to its members and therefore can itself be sued and enter into contracts. This theory was birthed into company law through the case of Salomon v Salomon and Co LTD 1872. This case involved a company entering liquidation and the unsecured creditors not being able to claim assets to compensate them. The issue in this case was whether Mr Salomon owed the money or the company did. In the end, the House of Lords held that the company was not an agent of Mr Salomon and so the debts were that of the company thus creating the “corporate Veil” .