Everything about Vicarious Liability totally explained
» :
This article is about vicarious liability in private litigation; for vicarious liability in criminal law, see Vicarious liability (criminal).
Vicarious liability is a form of
strict,
secondary liability that arises under the
common law doctrine of
agency –
respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from
contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the
tort theory of
enterprise liability.
Employers' liability
Employers are vicariously liable, under the
respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of
employment. For an act to be considered within the course of employment it must either be authorised or be so connected with an authorised act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it. Courts sometime distinguish between an employee's "detour" or "
frolic". For instance, an employer will be held liable if it's shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and won't subject the employer to liability. Neither, generally, will an employer be held liable for
assault or
battery committed by employees, unless the
use of force was part of their employment (for example
police officers, nightclub bouncers), or they were in a field likely to create friction with persons they encountered (for example car re-possessors). However, the employer of an
independent contractor isn't held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of the contractor, except where the contractor injures someone to whom the employer owes a non-delegable
duty of care, such as where the employer is a school authority and the injured party a pupil.
Employers are also
liable under the
common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, "qui facit per alium facit per se", for example the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests. This is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in
Criminal Law or
Tort for the acts or omissions of another.
Principals' liability
The owner of an automobile can be held vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person to whom the car has been loaned, as if the owner was a principal and the driver his or her agent,
if the driver is using the car primarily for the purpose of performing a task for the owner. Courts have been reluctant to extend this liability to the owners of other kinds of chattel. For example, the owner of a plane won't be vicariously liable for the actions of a pilot to whom he or she's lent it to perform the owner's purpose.
One example is in the case of a bank, finance company or other
lienholder performing a repossession of an automobile from the
registered owner for non-payment, the lienholder has a non-delegatable duty not to cause a breach of the peace in performing the repossession, or it'll be liable for damages even if the repossession is performed by an agent. This requirement means that whether a repossession is performed by the lienholder or by an agent, the repossessor must not cause a breach of the peace or the lienholder will be held resonsible. This requirement not to breach the peace is held upon the lienholder even if the breach is caused by, say, the debtor objecting to the repossession or resists the repossession. In the court case of
MBank El Paso v. Sanchez,
836 S.W.2d 151, where a hired repossessor towed away a car even after the registered owner locked herself in it, the court decided that this was an unlawful breach of the peace and declared the repossession invalid. The debtor was also awarded $1,200,000 in damages from the bank. In the United States, vicarious liability for automobiles has since been outlawed with respect to car leasing and rental in all 50 states.
Parental liability
In the
United States, the question of
parental responsibility generally and the issue of parental vicarious liability for the torts of their children is evolving. What is clear is that parents can be held liable for their own negligent acts, such as failure to supervise a child, or failure to keep a dangerous instrument such as a
handgun outside the reach of their children.
The liability of corporations in tort
In
English law, a
corporation can only act through its employees and agents so it's necessary to decide in which circumstances the law of agency or vicarious liability will apply to hold the corporation liable in tort for the
frauds of its directors or senior officers. If liability for the particular tort requires a state of mind, then to be liable, the director or senior officer must have that state of mind and it must be attributed to the company. In
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Limited v Securities Commission [1995] 2 AC 500, two employees of the company, acting within the scope of their authority but unknown to the directors, used company funds to acquire some shares. The question was whether the company knew, or ought to have known that it had acquired those shares. The
Privy Council held that it did. Whether by virtue of their actual or ostensible authority as agents acting within their authority (see
Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co. [1912] AC 716) or as employees acting in the course of their employment (see
Armagas Limited v Mundogas S.A. [1986] 1 AC 717), their acts and omissions and their knowledge could be attributed to the company, and this could give rise to liability as joint tortfeasors where the directors have assumed responsibility on their own behalf and not just on behalf of the company.
So if a director or officer is expressly authorised to make representations of a particular class on behalf of the company, and fraudulently makes a representation of that class to a Third Party causing loss, the company will be liable even though the particular representation was an improper way of doing what he was authorised to do. The extent of authority is a question of fact and is significantly more than the fact of an employment which gave the employee the opportunity to carry out the fraud. In
Panorama Developments (Guildford) Limited v Fidelis Furnishing Fabrics Limited [1971] 2 QB 711, a company secretary fraudulently hired cars for his own use without the knowledge of the managing director. A company secretary routinely enters into contracts in the company's name and has administrative responsibilities that would give apparent authority to hire cars. Hence, the company was liable.
Criticisms of vicarious liability
The principle of vicarious liability can also be bypassed with a legal instrument known as Employers Indemnity. When an employer is successfully sued, they've the option of suing the tortfeasor for an indemnity to recover the damages back. This principle is greatly criticised when used in the case of
Lister v Romford Ice Cold Storage
Further Information
Get more info on 'Vicarious Liability'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://vicarious_liability.totallyexplained.com">Vicarious liability Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
