Vicarious liability is a liability where the master is liable for the tort of his servant, principal for his agent, partner for another partner and an employer for an employee.
Learn more about this important topic in around 826 words.
https://www.writinglaw.com/vicarious-liability-under-tort-law/
https://paulandperkins.com/types-of-malpractice/hospital-malpractice/vicarious-liability/#:~:text=Hospital%20Vicarious%20Liability.%20Hospital%20vicarious%20liability%20may%20be,misconduct%20of%20staff%20members%20operating%20within%20the%20hospital.
so I got this COMBANK ethics question wrong earlier today and the answer was "Vicarious Liability" - So I was looking more into it and I thought it was pretty interesting
The article above stated this: "In the past, hospitals could often escape responsibility for the actions of staff members operating as independent contractors. Since these workers were not directly employed by the hospital, the hospital claimed no responsibility for the actions of these medical professionals. In recent years, however, many cases have held hospitals vicariously liable for the actions of contractors operating within the hospital."
This got me thinking - If midlevels practicing in independent states want independence - Physicians should have the right to refuse oversight, allowing the hospital to take on all the liability associated with that practitioner - After all, they hired this individual with the assumption they could provide care to the "top of their license"
Could this be our defense? Any corporation who hires midlevels, physicians should always have the opt-out ability, leaving all the liability on their employer. This could perhaps allow us to be properly utilized seeing more complex patients while the hospital is much more cautious about having too many midlevels
The reason I ask, is because variations of the "are corporations legitimate" question is posted here relatively often, and the usual answer is that it is a violation of the NAP for the state to confer special benefits like limited liability onto some people.
I agree that the state shouldn't confer special benefits to only some people or business entities. But the primary reason limited liability exists in the first place is a response to the legal doctrine of vicarious liability (or respondeat superior), which holds that some people (namely, employers) are responsible for the torts of other people (employees).
Isn't holding an innocent party responsible for the wrongs of others a violation of the NAP? Shouldn't essentially everyone enjoy limited liability?
I am trying to study efficiently and wanted to make sure I’m proficient in topics that come up in multiple subjects. So far I’ve seen that agency issues appear in both Torts and in Agency (obviously). I’ve also seen some cross-over in landlord/tenant between Property and Torts.
Can anyone think of any others (or is there a list somewhere I can find).
Congrats to all the July takers on being done and well wishes to September/October takers who are still studying.
Introduced: Sponsor: Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]
This bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary which will consider it before sending it to the House floor for consideration.
Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9] is a member of the committee.
(Sorry if it's obvious, 1st year law student here) I just submitted my torts assignment which posed a problem question involving a gang leader instructing his gang members to inflict battery on the plaintiff.
I put in a line discussing the potentiality of a gang leader holding vicarious liability over the tortious action of his gang members (particularly when he made the direction), and that while there's seemingly no Common Law authority recognising this specific relationship, that the Common Law would be 'sufficiently flexible' to recognise it under the circumstances (Hollis v Vabu (2001) 207 CLR 21 at 42).
So what do you reckon? Could a gang leader be vicariously liable for the actions of gang members? Hit-men come to mind as well.
If the customers of a cafe (food and soft drinks only, doesn't service alcohol) are continually harassing a neighbour of the cafe by congregating in that person's doorway, verbally abusing them, and shouting homophobic slurs, could the cafe be held liable for refusing to bar these patrons from its premises?
The police are aware of the situation and a camera has been installed on the person's doorstep but is there anything further that the local authority or cafe itself should be doing to prevent this? These people are only in the area because they hang out at this cafe and so if they were barred it is believed that this would end a lot of the problems.
Thanks in advance for any answers.
Hello there!
In SG, are the parents/guardians liable for the act/crimes/torts committed by their child?
If yes, I would appreciate if someone could point me to the exact legal provision [name of law, at the very least; and the section # if possible].
Under SG laws, the a child under 7 y.o. is exempt from criminal liability, as well as above 7 y.o. and under 12 y.o. who has no sufficient understanding. [Penal Code, Sec. 82-83]
I would be interested in knowing if the parents will be made to pay for the damages caused by their children. Example when the child destroys the property of another.
Any kind of help would be much appreciated. I've been using google but so far I can't find a definitive answer [except this one: https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/child-x-injures-my-child-do-i-sue-child-xs-parent-or-child-x/ but there's no legal basis nor jurisprudence cited].
Saw this news of the ruling on the Ellis defence. As a non specialist lawyer watching this area I'm left wondering where the boundaries of responsibility lie and how far vicarious liability can reach.
Seems the boundaries have shifted : cases decades old have resulted in penalties imposed on the parent organisation due to decisions made (or not made) by administrators who often had no first hand knowledge of the incident(s), no specific criminal convictions to refer to and dubious legal quality proof of the incident or the accused guilty/innocent status.
Obviously a difficult topic in it's own right and complicated by the variety + volume of incidents and edge cases.
Hi guys. I need help with what the test for vicarious liability is. Specifically for whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee.
Wouldn't it be fairly easy for two people to conspire to defraud a company using the vicarious liability provision? Person A gets a job at the company and does something negligent that affects Person B. Person B then sues and the company is liable for the negligent behavior of Person A. As long as these two people aren't easy to connect then it would be difficult or impossible to detect this kind of scam, or at least on a one-off basis.
Is the main difference that VL has not directly breached any duty to the plaintiff otherwise; and non-delegable direct?
Or am I looking at this wrong? After reading s 5Q of the CLA I'm a tad confused. Thanks for the help
greetings friends: I am reading so many conflicting statements on co-signers (not on title or registration) injury liability in cases of NON-Operator... I am trying to protect my mother best as can. I'm afraid of non delegable accident liability on co-signed... Or even negligent entrustment etc despite HIPPA as I've heard 'should of known about medical conditions' can be used as excuse to pin liability. Heck even Advil says 'do not drive' on it these days. I don't think a promissory note would work as i doubt Ford, Audi, etc would let a secondary assign over in first place thus negating why I need co-sign in first place. Could do umbrella policy but.... Hesitant. Am I being overly worried for her? I make the payments - I drive only 5k miles a year (yeah) mostly to grocery & dr's, hence why I don't want to purchase.
https://twitter.com/loishh/status/1470340143970230277
There's been a big debate recently on can OpenSea be taken down with DMCA, either by sending complaints to their host Google (?) or directly through a lawsuit.
Site hosts, ISPs do issue takedown notices if they get excessive DMCA warnings with no systematic action taking place. While OpenSea does have a process its long winded (perhaps by intention) and fruitless for many. Accounts are also not banned in some cases, meaning the bot/person can continue listing infringed art.
A big artist noticed her art was being stolen, spent hours sifting the images, compiling the docs and sending each complaint individually, OpenSea seeing her massive following were kickstarting a collective action against the platform, has gone out of their way and removed all notified images as well as those she did not notify but are hers.
https://twitter.com/loishh/status/1471172722948554754
Key thing here is that they took down images she did not tell them to in advance, so they clearly have the ability to search and proactively filter listings (unless it was done manually for this one case). If they can do it for one artist, it means they should be doing it for all, yet they do not.
This seems very similar to the Napster case imo, a mp3 sharing platform, which received lawsuits from multiple big artists, settled but then got one from the Recording Industry Association of America. The mother of all lawsuits that aimed to shut them down and did after it found in them violation on several factors (elaborated below).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
>"When Napster told the district court that it had developed a technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not good enough. Napster had to push the infringements 'down to zero.' If 99.4 percent is not good enough," Lessig concluded, "then this is a war on file-sharing technologies, not a war on copyright infringement."
While its true OpenSea does not host the images, imo this is a technical scapegoat. The browser renders the image despite being held elsewhere. The identical image is still being visually placed in a location that artists do
... keep reading on reddit ➡This post is likely to be quite long. I will breakdown what has been happening to date without the legal jargon as best I can to convey the situation at hand.
Up until today, the majority of dealings have been tit-for-tat theatrics, however this evening the first substantial filing was made available following the initial DMCA takedown.
I am not going to post links to the documents here, however they are circulating within the Myth of Empires discord, and in other parts of Reddit.
I. Nature of Complaint
Snail Games USA Inc, and Wildcard Studios LLC (Ark)
are accusing
Suzhou Angela Online Game Technology Co Ltd, and Imperium Interactive Entertainment Limited (Myth of Empires)
of two things:
(1) copyright infringement (using their work without authorisation)
(2) trade secret misappropriation (a form of theft and espionage)
Snail Games USA Inc, and Wildcard Studios LLC (Ark)
are accusing
Tencent Cloud LLC (Tencent)
of:
(1) vicarious copyright infringement (benefitting from a copyright infringement as a secondary party)
(2) contributory copyright infringement (liable for a copyright infringement as a secondary party)
Tencent are a secondary party to copyright infringement as Myth of Empires is the primary party. Tencent provide the official servers for Myth of Empires.
II. DMCA Notice & Counternotice
Ark presented a DMCA takedown notice to: Valve, Nitrado, and Tencent. This is what we can currently see from court documents thus far.
DMCA takedown notices are reliant on 'good faith', which is a very low threshold to meet. Upon receipt of a DMCA takedown notice, each receiving party may choose to comply with it in order to excuse itself from potential liability.
Valve and Nitrado complied with the notice, while Tencent did not.
Within the DMCA takedown notice, Ark raised awareness to copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation (as mentioned above).
As of time of writing, there is no document in the public domain that demonstrates Myth of Empires submitting a DMCA counternotice in response. Instead, Myth of Empires filed in California District Court to seek an order for non-infringement and non-misappropriation (effectively asking for a court order that states they did not infringe copyright and they did not steal trade secrets).
III. Legal Standard in Civil Litigation
The case between Ark and Myth of Empires is civil action.
Legal Standard i
Sometimes when people on the left point out the almost state-like power wielded by corporations, libertarians will say that the only reason companies can get as big as they do is because the government forces individuals to recognize the personhood of corporations and eliminates the possibility of recovering from a corporation’s owner(s) directly.
Unlike with a lot of libertarian arguments, I actually agree with the substance of this one. Absolutely Twitter is only as big as it is because its owners don’t have to individually deal with lawsuits. Obviously Apple wouldn’t have been able to claim the market share it did if it were organized as a partnership with 20 or so partners. Companies reach ceilings pretty fast once there’s a dozen or so owners who know they can be held liable for the actions of any of the others.
But in practice, I feel like it operates more as a “gotcha” as if to say real libertarianism has never been tried. Corporate personhood becomes the original sin that any other flaw in capitalism can be blamed on. I can’t figure out any other reason to make this argument. Obviously corporate personhood and limitations on liability aren’t going away, so what’s the point? Can anyone enlighten me?
Hey y'all! I've been working with AdaptiBar since December. My average is currently 60.7%, and I've done 624 questions (stats of all users, for reference, are 59.3%, and 355 questions). I've found that in the last two days, my daily average is plummeting to around 48-55%. I usually do 30 questions per day, along with writing a few essays and reviewing flash cards. Am I still in good standing?
Also, can anyone possibly explain to me the CivPro concept of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel, as well as Comparative Negligence and Vicarious Liability under torts? Those are the questions I tend to bomb the most and for the life of me, I just can't make sense of it.
Thank you all!!
I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.
Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.
Is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I like that I'm apparently liable for damages of 10,000 US dollars for violations or breaches of the contract (!!!), and also not only can I not teach for another company, I can't teach English online EVEN A YEAR after the end of my contract (!!!)
The thousands of people driving those ubiquitous Amazon-branded blue vans aren't employed by the Seattle leviathan. They work for small, independent businesses with contracts to transport packages for Amazon. But that hasn't stopped the company from dictating the state of their fingernails — and a whole lot more.
"Personal grooming must be maintained at an acceptable level, including but not limited to prevention of unpleasant breath or body odor, modest perfume/cologne, and clean teeth, face/ears, fingernails and hair," Amazon.com Inc. says in a recent version of its policies governing these small delivery companies, or what the company calls Delivery Service Partners.
The document, also requires that drivers refrain from "obscene" social-media posts, undergo training programs approved by Amazon, follow instructions from Amazon's delivery app and be drug tested whenever Amazon representatives ask.
The DSPs are required to adhere to Amazon's policies, which the company can unilaterally change whenever it wants. They also must provide Amazon physical access to their premises and all sorts of data the retailer wants, such as geo-locations, speed and movement of drivers — information the company says it has the power to use however it wants.
For several years, Amazon has sought to bring order to its far-flung delivery operations, which were plagued by accidents, complaints about thrown packages and infamous incidents such as the time a contract driver relieved herself in a customer's driveway. But in exerting more control over these workers, legal experts say, the company has created legal risks for itself.
Amazon has chosen not to directly employ DSP drivers, an arrangement that shields it from costs and liabilities the work incurs. Amazon's growing sway over its delivery partners, however, could convince courts and government agencies that the company is a "joint employer" or "vicariously liable" party.
"Amazon seems to want to have its cake and eat it too — to have all the control of an employment relationship, without bearing the costs," said University of Miami law professor Andrew Elmore, who investigated employment cases as a section chief in the New York Attorney General's Office. "These documents provide an important signal to courts and to government agencies that this is a relationship to look at."
Amazon is hardly the only company to use such a "fissured" labor model: Franchised, subcontracted or ostensible contract workers staff most McDon
... keep reading on reddit ➡Question ID: 4487
The issue is whether the instructions were correctly issued regarding:
1. Fireworks displays are not an abnormally dangerous activity and thus are not subject to strict liability is incorrect.
R: Under the abnormally dangerous test, a court will consider (1) the nature of the activity and whether the activity was reasonable based on the location; (2) whether the harm that occurred was a type of harm that results from the activity at issue; and other factors.
A: Here: In strict liability a defendant is liable no matter the precautions that were undertaken The fireworks were abnormally dangerous for the locale it was conducted in, but even with careful expert use, mortars can still misfire, which causes 9,000 deaths nationally and accounts for 15% of accidents even where there is compliance with government regulations.
Therefore under strict liability, fireworks are an inherently dangerous activity & thus, fireworks are subject to strict liability regardless of precautions undertaken by the defendant.
2. Based on the evidence submitted, a reasonable jury not could conclude that the conduct of the fireworks company was negligent is incorrect under res ispa loquitter.
Negligence requires: (1) a duty the defendant owed to plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty in failing to adhere to a reasonable standard of care under the circumstances, (3) proximate and actual causation and, (4) harm to plaintiff.
RIL allows an inference of negligence to be inferred where an accident that wouldn't have ordinarily occurred happens. The instrumentality must have been in the defendant's exclusive control or use with plaintiff not at fault in any way. Therefore, the only issue left to a jury would be the issue of damages. Negligence requires: (1) a duty the defendant owed to plaintiff, (2) breach of that duty in failing to adhere to a reasonable standard of care under the circumstances, (3) proximate and actual causation and, (4) harm to plaintiff.
R: A inference of negligence can be inferred if: an accident that wouldn't have normally occurred happen because a instrumentality was within the defendant's exclusive control or use because the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident in any way. This is the case here a breach of duty is presumed because the fireworks were an proximate and actual cause of the plaintiff's harm. The fireworks were in the defendant's exclusive use or control and such an accident does
... keep reading on reddit ➡Alot of great jokes get posted here! However just because you have a joke, doesn't mean it's a dad joke.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT NSFW, THIS IS ABOUT LONG JOKES, BLONDE JOKES, SEXUAL JOKES, KNOCK KNOCK JOKES, POLITICAL JOKES, ETC BEING POSTED IN A DAD JOKE SUB
Try telling these sexual jokes that get posted here, to your kid and see how your spouse likes it.. if that goes well, Try telling one of your friends kid about your sex life being like Coca cola, first it was normal, than light and now zero , and see if the parents are OK with you telling their kid the "dad joke"
I'm not even referencing the NSFW, I'm saying Dad jokes are corny, and sometimes painful, not sexual
So check out r/jokes for all types of jokes
r/unclejokes for dirty jokes
r/3amjokes for real weird and alot of OC
r/cleandadjokes If your really sick of seeing not dad jokes in r/dadjokes
Punchline !
Edit: this is not a post about NSFW , This is about jokes, knock knock jokes, blonde jokes, political jokes etc being posted in a dad joke sub
Edit 2: don't touch the thermostat
